Talk:Biblical literalism

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

eh?

I've done my best to improve various spelling and grammar issues, but this sentence has defeated me:-

These views however do not contend the literalistic values that parables, metaphors and allegory are not existent in the Bible [15][16] but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention. [17]

What does 'values' mean in this context? Should 'relies' not be 'rely'? I can't figure the sentence out, so I'm not editing it as I'm reluctant to destroy any finer nuances of meaning. SheffieldSteel 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how about, "These views do not contend that literalism excludes parable, metaphors and allegory but rather..." Bdcallaway (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about, "Those that hold these literalist views do not contend that parables, metaphors and allegory are non existent in the Bible, but rather they rely on contextual interpretations, based on the author's intentions in writing the text." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amthisguy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

The Criticisms section needs to be significantly expanded because at this point there is far too literal information, and all of it decontextualized. At present, it seems more a series of unrelated quotes which need further explination as to why they are adequate or inadequate critques of the subject at hand. jackturner3 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What I have found is that it is quite clear that EVERYONE "interprets" the bible in different ways, even those who claim that they take the "literal meaning" of the text. Some discussion rapidly demonstrates that it is often impossible for two people to agree on what the "literal meaning" of the text is, even if they claim otherwise. This is because:

  • whether Biblical literalists admit it or not, there are way too many versions of the bible that exist. For example, examining the known 5000+ versions of the new testament shows more variations than there are words in the new testament. The situation with the old testament is not much better. For example, is the number of the beast 666 or something else? Different versions of the text give different numbers.
  • there is too much controversy about the translations of the bible, particularly when there were no vowels in the written Hebrew at the time the old testament was written so it is ambiguous
  • there is too much controversy about what books are to be included in the canon. The Mormons, the Catholics, the Protestants, and the Orthodox all have a different canon for example. I have noticed that very few literalists are even aware of this.
  • the bible is inconsistent and self-contradictory in literally 10s of thousands of places, as has been well documented for centuries, so if one does believe it "literally", one is believing a pile of nonsense
  • the bible is replete with parables and allegory and figures of speech, not all of which we understand very well or interpret the same way
  • some of the bible was clearly written in a form of code (for example, "Revelations"), which we might or might not be able to understand
  • the bible is often written using illogical "nonpropositions" such as the Platonic "four footed idea" which are nonsensical and requires interpretation to make sense. These objects are so vague that any meaning can be asserted for them or imposed on them by the religious

In light of these reasons and others, I think anyone who says they take the bible literally is either deluded, deceitful, ignorant, or worse. It is prima facie evidence of someone who is unable or unwilling to use their God-given powers of reason and is basically spewing nonsense.--Filll 11:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fill, I think you're missing the point of the article. The term Biblical Literalist is used to point the finger and make fun of those who are deemed less scientific, kinda like you just did. No one actully believes that swords will come out of Jesus' mouth, that's an allegory. So this article is to define how the term "Biblical Literalist" is used, It's not to join in with arrogant liberal scholars by creating an article bashing conservative ones. If you read the article, you'll learn that not even the staunchest of conservative inerrentists believe in literal interpretation. Therefore your whole rant agiants those scholars who according to you are "unable or unwilling to use their God-given powers of reason" is moot, cause they don't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.153.46 (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]


Um.. by adding your opinion on "Biblical Literalists," you haven't achieved anything. The issue is that the "criticism" section adds nothing of substance, only a shopping list of points without substance. That entire section needs be turned into PARAGRAPHS, and the actual reasoning EXPLAINED!! "Why are "Biblical literalists" heretics?"

Yoda921 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Yoda[reply]


This is a work in progress. So it takes time and effort to achieve anything.--Filll 03:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Fill, nice edits, thanks for cleaning this up a bit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.153.46 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]


I somehow get the feeling that the Criticism section is just a list of quotes that isn't really a section. Perhaps someone could clean it up into a slightly more paragraphical version? Jenigmat429 14:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned earlier,I am not really sure the sources cited for the criticism section are completely reliable. For example, for the bullet that states biblical literalism causes mental illnesses, the source is more of an opinion page that does not show any data / research to substantiate such a claim. I would edit this portion myself, but am relatively new and would like some input.Hoffungstod (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading the source and the others, I see where the editors got these quotes from. However, we should still look for better sources on the subject. As suggested, this could all be improved by doing away with the current format of a laundry list of quotes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffungstod (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first criticism listed includes a quote stating that a literalist interpretation means the earth is flat. It provides bible references, but the verses referenced don't include anything about a flat earth when interpreted literally. That quote should probably be removed and replaced with criticism from a source that actually backs up its claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amthisguy (talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old thread from 2007. —PaleoNeonate – 01:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "biblical apocrypha" has nothing to do with literalism

The issues there are entirely different. That section should be cut or, if I am mistaken, tied into liberalism explicity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101f:c07f:c547:3487:7a61:6325 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

This article paints with too broad a brush

You can't lump the miracles of Jesus in with the Genesis to suggest that taking Jesus' miracles literally is the same as taking Genesis literally. At the least, the Gospels were written by folks who knew the Apostles (who claimed to have seem the miracles) and folks who themselves would have seen the miracles. Also, when Genesis was put into writing, no one had ever tried to record history literally. The Gospels, on the other hand, come well after Herodotus et al. The Gospel writers were arguably not trying to write mythology or hagiography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101f:c07f:c547:3487:7a61:6325 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

The majority opinion of Bible scholars is that the gospels are based upon oral gospel traditions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reverted?

Tgeorgescu Why did you revert my edit? I gave a sound reasoning for the removal, and you just reverted it with no explanation. 2601:644:8D80:6A0:4010:F502:5339:B6F4 (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not editing neutrally. Dead link — not true, it's archived. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu I don't understand what you mean. The link is broken, and none of the verses cited support any of the claims made. Can you explain how that is non-neutral? 2601:644:8D80:6A0:50:33D6:9A9C:5DD9 (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu I see the archived link now. Is that link a reliable source? It seems to be the opinion of one person who is non-notable, with no citations to back up the claims made. 2601:644:8D80:6A0:50:33D6:9A9C:5DD9 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why would be non-notable opinion? He is/was a full professor of psychology of religion. none of the verses cited support any of the claims made is just POV, see WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu I can't find anything on him from a Google search. 2601:644:8D80:6A0:B1BC:6E75:47BE:B157 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.macon.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article30219219.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Emeritus according to https://psychology.eku.edu/sites/psychology.eku.edu/files/revised_fall_2016_ug_handbook.pdf Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that answers all of my questions. Thanks for your time. I'll leave the text. 2601:644:8D80:6A0:B1BC:6E75:47BE:B157 (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu Actually, I don't understand how saying that none of the verses cited support any of the claims makes me a "bigot". The verses do not mention any of the claims made, and is a bad example of biblical literalism. Besides, that's an essay not a guideline. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here, at Wikipedia, fighting against historical criticism is doomed to fail by default. Google three storied universe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu I'm not fighting against historical criticism. I'm trying to argue that the text in question is a bad example of biblical literalism, based on the face that none of the cited verses support any of the claims made. That's why I removed it in the first place. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none of the cited verses support any of the claims made is just your POV. Mainstream Bible scholars beg to differ. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu Does this[1] help? 98.37.0.12 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of mainstream Bible scholars is that the Bible does teach that the Earth is flat. The consensus about the biblical POV is the three-storied universe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu Which scholars, besides the one you already referenced? Wouldn't the teachings of the flat Earth by Christians be comparable to the geocentric theory, in the sense that it fell out of favor to heliocentrism? The point I'm trying to make is that errant views held previously shouldn't reflect a source when the information is taken out of context. Such as pointing to a verse saying "four corners of the Earth" as definitive proof that the bible is saying the Earth is flat, for example. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Proveallthings: I did overlook Stephen Miller's reasoning, and I did it intentionally. And it's because me and you are attempting to do two different things right now. You're attempting to use evidence to find what is true. I'm attempting to survey the literature to find out what most scholars say about this particular question. That's because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of truth, but a service for summarizing what the scholarly community says. If we were here to discover what is true together on the Wikipedia talk pages, then you would be doing what is right (marshalling the linguistic arguments), and I would be doing something wrong (just quoting a bunch of authorities and pointing out that "your side" here consists only of people with a particular theological set of commitments). So let me be clear. I'm not saying you're wrong about "father". You, and Kenneth Kitchen, might be right. I'm just saying that, in terms of the way Wikipedia weighs sources, Kenneth Kitchen's opinion is out on the fringes in the scholarly world. Alephb (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu You cited one source, and claimed that the view is supported by the consensus of Biblical scholars. Which other scholars support the view that the bible is supporting the idea of a flat Earth? 98.37.0.12 (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not paid to educate you. UTFS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu The onus is on you, since you made the claim. I'll drop it if you can cite other sources. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Used on forums where certain participants are too lazy to use the search function to find what they need and so they open a new, unnecessary, topic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu I'm not opening a new topic, as it's still relevant to the original conversation. I'm just asking you to cite one more source that upholds the view that the Flat Earth theory is supported by the bible. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, wrong, you are pushing a WP:FRINGE POV. I told you which search engine to use and what to search for. We are not negotiating with WP:RANDY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu How is that? One source isn't a consensus. I told you which search engine to use and what to search for. No, you just told me to stop being lazy in so many words, the idea which is a bit ridiculous when you make a claim then refuse to cite more than more source while claiming that the view is upheld by a consensus. Especially when the burden of proof is on you. Pointing out that one source doesn't equate to a consensus is hardly rejecting all sources, or consensus (WP:RANDY). That's also another essay, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please, just cite one more source so I can establish that the view is held by a consensus, and I'll drop it. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, that would be Tgeorgescu. Please see [burden of proof]. You have yet to provide evidence for your claim about the consensus of Biblical scholars. Offering only one source for such a claim is [anecdotal fallacy]. A logical fallacy where one thinks that one case makes a pattern. And the request to make IP user search for evidence on your behalf is not acting in good faith. It's not only an arrogant and disregarding gesture on your behalf, but it his not his burden to disprove what you have yet to prove, see [Hitchen's razor]. LordRogalDorn (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Old Testament cosmos.

J. Edward Wright (28 March 2002). The Early History of Heaven. Oxford University Press. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-19-534849-1. and https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1969/JASA3-69Seely.html and https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LordRogalDorn: Except, as stated, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of truth (i.e. WP:OR), it is an encyclopedia driven by academic consensus. The academic consensus exists independently of Wikipedia and, really, the three-storied universe isn't a novelty in Bible scholarship. It belongs to stock knowledge. It's that basic. Being told what to search for and where fulfilled the WP:BURDEN. Really, that Google search offers plenty of information. See for WP:RS Ascension of Jesus#Cosmology and Biblical_cosmology#Cosmography (shape and structure of the cosmos). I mean: it's that easy to find. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing against a point I was not making. I am well aware that Wikipedia is driven by academic consensus, not by original research. However, that doesn't spare you from the burden of proof. I'm not taking parts in your discussion or saying that one opinion is right or wrong. I'm saying that you are still trying to use anecdotal evidence to make the case for a whole pattern, a logical fallacy. Please don't attempt to defend your point with the bandvagon fallacy as well, if this is genuinely that basic, you can do a good faith gesture and offer more academic sources stating the same thing. Simply telling the other user what to search on your behalf, is not a nice gesture and does not fulfill WP:BURDEN. The burden of proof being on you means that you have to do the work of finding evidence for your assertion, trying to make him disprove what you have yet to prove comes across as cheap. LordRogalDorn (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LordRogalDorn: This isn't Debatepedia, so the rules of logical argumentation do not apply. As said, the academic consensus is a reality which is external to Wikipedia and never depends upon my own person and my own arguments. See argument from fallacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This cannot be a case of argument from fallacy since I never took a stance on whose opinion is right or wrong. My point was not that you are wrong, my point was that you are not arguing properly. This isn't Debatepedia but a discussion on the talk page is a debate to see who is right, so the same rules apply. Logical fallacies are universal, not restricted to formal debates. I'm not denying that academic consensus is a reality external to Wikipedia that doesn't depend on your opinion. I'm pointing out that you made the claim that the external academic consensus is a certain way, and the other users doubted that the academic consensus is the way you assert, therefore your lack of concensus. And to prove the academic consensus is the way you mentioned you provided one source, this is anecdotal evidence as one case does not make a pattern. Two cases don't make a pattern either, especially when the object to be proven is a generally agreed academic concensus, but that's what the other user requested, and if that's what it takes to reach concensus the simplest thing you can do is provide him another source. LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LordRogalDorn: I have provided him three sources before you wrote a single word. The IP simply refused to Google it, i.e. refused to learn what the consensus is. And no, one good WP:RS is more than enough, if it fulfills the condition stated at WP:RS/AC. The gist is: it is known for a long time that the Bible preaches flat Earth, and it is known that only fundamentalists are denying that, since in their view the Bible has to be inerrant (even when it's not). They don't want to admit that the Bible has mistakes of any kind, and their harmonizations are pretty far-fetched. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LordRogalDorn It's fine. Tgeorgescu supplied more links to uphold his claim that the flat Earth theory being supported via the bible is true, so I really don't mind.
Tgeorgescu You could have explained that to me, that one reliable source fulfills the condition via WP:RS/AC. No need to be so abrasive. 98.37.0.12 (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Biblical_literalism"