Talk:Biblical literalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Redirect

This article is pointless. It stood for a year as a redirect to biblical inerrancy, and I feel it should stay as a redirect. There is a section there that deals with biblical literalism. I think any efforts should first go to expanding that section. If there is a need for a spinout article after an expansion attempt, then we can open up this article, but until then, we are just repeating content and creating 2 weak articles, instead of focusing efforts on improving the first. The majority of the content here is in list format, clearly not encyclopedic. It is full of POV statements, and a lack of intext citation (and arguably original research). I propose returning this page to a redirect, and any editors interested in this topic, work on the appropriate section of biblical inerrancy. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not an outrageous position, but I'd recommend doing it via a merge to the relevant section. Looking closely, I think the relevant section in biblical inerrancy should get a NPOV-section tag, as it clearly attacks the bibilical literalism position without giving any support for it. GRBerry 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Although Biblical literalism is founded upon an acceptance of Biblical inerrancy, persons interested in the debate over Biblical literalism should not have to mull over its implicit concepts on which they may already agree. This is analogous to suggesting that the page for "Hydrogen bonds" be redirected to a giant article for Chemical bonds. There are a number of debates that arise from Biblical literalism that are not explicitly related to Biblical inerrancy. Among these are Creationism vs. theory of evolution, modern geocentrism vs. "Big Bang" theory, Young Earth Creationism vs. "Big Bang" theory, etc. Ultimately, this discussion hinges on considerations of article length, and keeping these articles separate provides room for the inevitable growth of both topics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arbeiter (talk • contribs) .

This "article" is terribly formatted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of debates. Bulleted argument lists are not how encyclopedias are written. If you want to write this in a debate format, there is a separate wiki for such material, but I've discarded my bookmark to it, so I can't give you a pointer. The article should not be written as arguments, it should be written as an encyclopedia article (hint, prose paragraphs, references to the secondary literature) about this hermeneutic, with appropriate balance to maintain a NPOV. GRBerry 13:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll let this sit for awhile and see if it improves, but if not, I intend to make the literalism section of biblical inerrancy better by merging info from this article there. If one day, that section gets too big and requires a spinout article, then this page can clearly be used, but as is, I strongly feel this is a very poor example of what a wikipedia article can be.--Andrew c 02:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This article is so very "pointful" that you can't stand it. I realize that it stood for a year as a redirect to a blatantly POV paragraph which used ridicule as its clenching argument, but the good times just couldn't last forever. I doubt that anyone who believes in the six day Creation of Genesis chronology would have to draw the limit of God's power at having "Isaiah's trees sprouting hands and actually clapping them".

This page is overflowing with references. Could you provide some insight into what references you feel are lacking? Also, Encyclopedic sections are not always in a prose format. My encyclopedia has lists, tables, charts, and (gasp) even pictures. Wikipedia's "Guide to layout" states:

"Articles generally comprise prose paragraphs, not bullet points; however, sometimes a bulleted list can break up what would otherwise be an overly large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers. Bulleted lists should not be overused in the main text, but are typical in the reference and reading sections at the bottom... Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points."

Arbeiter: If your two argument sections have greater eloquence in a list format, don't let Wiki-bullies intimidate you into altering your sections into an incomprehensible form. Censors never want "theses" they oppose to be comprehensible to the average person. Keep working towards clarity, and let them belly-ache away. Don't let anybody lead you to believe that axiomatic statements require references. Avoid using big words like "axiomatic" or "theses" in the descriptive sentences of your introductory article; theological jargon like "hermeneutics" is best left inside theology books. You don't want your readers scuttling away through links or running for a dictionary; they may lose their train of thought, or may never come back. As a matter of style, I suggest relegating Bullinger's "Figures of Speech" and Morgan's "Inconsistencies" to a "Further reading" section. DixiePixie 23:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Biblical inerrancy is already too big and clumsy to include all this information. After more than two weeks, there was no consensus for the merge. Also, this article is packed with references; be more specific with your complaints. Witch-King 14:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

For the purpose of writing an encyclopedia article, the citations of scripture really don't count as references. They count as original research, which is forbidden by the core policy Wikipedia:No original research, in particular "articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ..., or statements that serves to advance a position." The entire sections "Arguments against Biblical literalism" and "Arguments for Biblical literalism" violate this policy. They need to be replaced with content that summarizes (and cites) literature (texts, articles, etc...) about Biblical literalism.

To be clear, right now this article has no relevant references. GRBerry 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with GRBerry. We are not citing sources in this article, per wikipedia guidelines. We are instead publishing original research by interpreting the bible without citing reliable sources. I stand by my original merge proposal. I think energy should be put into expanding the literalism section of inerrancy BEFORE creating a spinout article. Per the guidelines, spinout articles should only be created if there isn't enough room to cover the topic completely in the parent article. As stated by other editors, it seems the motivation behind the creation of this article was a POV fork to counter the "blatantly POV paragraph which used ridicule as its clenching argument". Fix that fist, and if that section gets too heavy, only then move on to here, not the other way around.-Andrew c 22:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles talking about the Bible cannot reference it? This sounded like legalistic wrangling to me, and so I checked some encyclopedias; every encyclopedia at which I looked indicated otherwise. The English Bible is not a primary source. Every English version of the Bible is (at least) a secondary interpretation of the primary Biblical texts; each has already been subjected to scholarly interpretation and revised at multiple points in history. It is only the well-published product of this scholarly interpretation that I referenced; see canonical books of the Bible. Additionally, the non-Biblical references I have seen use excess verbiage or use inflammatory speech. It is not my goal to whip Christians into a frenzy; I would rather keep the arguments civilized; see Wikipedia:Civility. To explain by example, compare these:

• Biblical literalism results in Christians...
  • ...believing that our God was cruel and vengeful.

-OR-

• Biblical literalism results in Christians...
  • ..."believing that God is sadistic, brutal, vengeful, callow, cruel, and savage —a killer beyond reckoning." --Bill Moyers

The quotation provides unnecessary verbiage that is more difficult to read and may be perceived as a malicious attack instead of an objective argument. Additionally, Biblical literalists sometimes recognize only the Bible as authoritative, and not new age scholars. Many even refuse to recognize any version not sanctioned by their denomination. These statements are supported by the weight of Scriptural quotations within Wikipedia. There is even a page specifically devoted to quoting the Bible within Wikipedia. This page has even received contributions from Andrew c that I will quote here for your convenience:

"I'll sum up what I said before. Citing a bible verse is no different from citing any other source. We don't tell editors that they can't cite the New York Times or Washington Post or AP or Reuters because there are other open source news outlets. I see no conflict of interest at all in linking to another site when it comes to bible verses. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of well researched, professional bible translations that are copyright protected. If we make a rule against citing these translations, we are basically saying the best, scholarly sources are unavailable... --Andrew c 17:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)"

Finally, I would like to remind you that I have presented solid competing arguments, and therefore proposed nothing as truth. -- Arbeiter 11:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel my previous writing supports your view. The debate there was on whether copyrighted bibles could be cited as sources, and I thought that was the most ridiculous thing ever because nearly all of our other sources are copyrighted and we have no problem citing them. I, however, did not comment on when citing the bible was appropriate. When giving a plot summary of what happens in the Book of Revelation, it is of the utmost importance that we cite the actual verses being summarized. However, if we go on to say "666" represents Nero, the 7 headed beast represents the 7 hills of Rome, and give interpretations of what these verses MEAN, THEN we need a completely different source to support these interpretations. Understand the difference? Because this article is not summarizing the plot of various books of the bible, but instead giving conflicting interpretations of the text, we need citations other than the bible itself. Make sense? Furthermore, the "Arguments against Biblical literalism" section seems to be redundent with the Internal consistency and the Bible article and the Criticism of the bible#Internal consistency section; on top of that, the content is extremely POV. It flat out states that there contradictions and inconsistencies, a position that wikipedia, in order to be NPOV, cannot take if there are opposing POVs. We can't say "Many Scriptures contradict widely-accepted scientific theories", but instead say "Biblical skeptics believe a literal interpretation of various scriptures apparently contradict widely-accpeted scientific theories". And of course, we need a citation to support this view. It doesn't matter if you personally believe certain verses contradict cosmology; publishing that information here without citation is considered original research.--Andrew c 13:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I understand there is no significant difference.
• This makes no sense at all. "O, what a tangled web we weave..." -- Sir Walter Scott
• Only one of the main arguments within the section should overlap with the article and section you indicated.
• As for your other accusations, reread my previously posted responses. --Arbeiter 10:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

intro edits

The current intro does not meet wikipedia guidelines. The first sentence does not give a dictionary definition of what the topic is. I attempted to do that in my edits, but Arbeiter disagreed with my attempt on the basis of "It is presumptuous to declare built-in beliefs or motives of persons attempting to interpret Scripture". I really don't know what that means or how it applies to my first sentence, which most of the wording was gathered from the previous version of the intro. If there is something specifically wrong or inaccurate with my edit, change it, don't revert it. We still need a first sentence/dictionary style definition. Secondly, the current version does not explain a) how prevelent this view is and b) who specifically holds this view. I attempted to correct this by introducing the wikilinks to conservative Christianity and creationism. This is clearly information that needs to be in the opening of an article, per wikipedia guidelines. Third, a priori seemed relevent and more descriptive. I don't see how that term is POV, but for the sake of conceeding something, this term isn't 100% necessary for understanding that sentence. Fourth, there is no reason under wikipedia guidelines to capitalize the word scripture, which is not a proper noun. I am not married to my particular version, but as outlined above, I find the current version unacceptable. I'd like to work with the editors here to bring the intro up to wikipedia standards. How can we do that?--Andrew c 21:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To further explain my previous comments... The statement below is presumptuous because the reader holding such a belief may be religiously undecided or even a devil worshipper (Boo! Hiss!). We cannot take for granted that this belief is always a Christain one.

"Biblical literalism is a Christian belief"

Going back to your revision below... To include the "held most commonly by" statement, we should have a reference to a published study or poll providing the data. Unfortunately, we do not. The statistical significance would be somewhat interesting, but largely irrelevant to the arguments. "Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." --Giordano Bruno. Then again, Bruno did get burned alive for heresy. I will add a link for conservative christians, but Creationism already had a link.

"It is... held most commonly by conservative christians. It is often associated with Creationism."

In regards to the statement below, to precisely which statement does "This" refer. Please provide me with a link to the "wikipedia guidelines" to which you are referring. Please be precise like DixiePixie was for you, because I could not find it.

"This is clearly information that needs to be in the opening of an article, per wikipedia guidelines."

I never said that Scripture was capitalized per Wikipedia guidelines. Instead, I specifically referenced my dictionary. Perhaps your dictionary says something different; I cannot be certain, because you did not reference your dictionary. My biggest concern about its capitalization is consistency throughout the entire article. You changed just one instance, and left the others unchanged. If you decide this is important to you, please do not change the capitalization found within any quoted materials. This would essentially transform them into misquotes. Arbeiter 15:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think being critical of the phrase "a Christian belief" is a little odd. Do you have a source to back up non-Christian belief in Biblical literalism?
• The undue weight section of the WP:NPOV policy applies. We can't simply present views without saying a) how prevelent they are and b) who holds these views. I'm not saying we need a poll or statistical analysis to say a specific percentage, but we can't ignore the issue and present this as a mainstream/common view (I mean, the first google hit for this phrase is a page arguing that no Biblical literalists exist).
• Your comment about truth is also odd. From WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth.
• As for scripture, I am going to ask for help regarding this issue on the capitalization guidelines page. To me, it seems like an issue where God should be capitalized if refering to the Judeo-Christian entity, but pronouns referencing Him should not be capitalized. Likewise, the Bible should be capitalized because it is the proper name of the Christian scripture, but scripture, even though it is capitalized in some contexts outside of wikipedia, should not be capitalized here because it is not a proper noun (and the phrase Holy Scripture is clearly POV and I don't see how it can be used in wikipedia, unless in quoted material).
• All that said, I think the article is getting a little better, though I think we should really focus on improving the literalism section of Biblical inerrancy first. I'm sure we can all agree that the section needs a major overhaul.--Andrew c 21:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This should self-evident. If the Bible is ever used as a tool to convert people to Christianity without a universal warning not to take it literally, there will be non-Christian literalists (even if only briefly). However, if you contend that Christians-to-be must become Christians first before they can be wise enough to graduate to Biblical literalism, then we are at an impasse here. What may not be self-evident is that some devil worshippers use the Bible as their source material (a religious 2-for-1 special). If any of them take the Bible literally, then you have non-Christian Biblical literalists.
  • The (page to which you linked) stated that articles need "not include tiny-minority views at all", and... "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them". It seems that you have made a wonderful case as to why this page should not be merged with Biblical inerrancy. Are you changing your vote? After all, this would be the appropriate page for the belief you claim is so incredibly rare.
  • I cannot claim that comment. It was a quote by Giordano Bruno. May he burn in Hell as he did on Earth.
  • Using that same argument, you should not capitalize God, since "Yahweh" is His name, and it might offend the other gods. Neither should you capitalize Bible, so as not to show POV against "Light on Yoga", "the bible of modern Yoga". But let me re-iterate, "My biggest concern about its capitalization is consistency throughout the entire article. You changed just one instance, and left the others unchanged. If you decide this is important to you, please do not change the capitalization found within any quoted materials. This would essentially transform them into misquotes. Arbeiter 15:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)"
  • Somebody has already started the overhaul.Arbeiter 14:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You ignored me completely. It doesn't matter if you personally speculate that there might be devil worshipping biblical literalists. You need to provide a source. WP:V. Please, respond by giving a reliable source describing non-Christian biblical literalism. (and even if we can find one person who fits that description, wouldn't that be giving the position undue weight? what if we qualified "Christian" with something like "for the most part" or "commonly" or something that makes it clear that the majority of Biblical literalists are Christian?)
    • You ignored me again and changed the topic. We were discussing how to present POVs, not when to decide if spinout articles are necessary. The NPOV policy is clear that if we are presenting a POV, we must say who holds the POV and how prevelent it is. This is basic, encyclopedic information that should be included in the intro to the topic. As for your comment, the applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Content forking. We must be concious of POV-forking. Are we creating a spinout article because the main article is getting too long, or are we creating articles to present POVs in more favorable light. I'd say the latter, based on comments here that seem to suggest this article was created in a reactionary manner to the negative treatment of the topic over at biblical inerrancy. I still think we should beef up and fix the section over there, and if a spinout article is eventually necessary, then use this page, instead of working in the opposite order.
    • Your analogies for capitalization are off basis because "God" is discussed in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters), and the "Bible" is a proper noun. But since the issue was consistency, not style, would you mind if I changed all the instances to a lowercase 's'?--Andrew c 15:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't believe you understand your own words. If I had ignored you completely, I would have never responded. Why are you ignoring my axiomatic statement? Arguing only with my admittedly weaker side note upon which the argument does not hinge is a waste of time. Even if you are rejecting may axiomatic statement as such, the guideline to which you linked states... "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source..." You are the one arguing for inclusion here, so the burden of verifying is yours, and not mine.
      • You sent me to the "undue weight section of the WP:NPOV policy". From reading this entire section, it became apparent that your own statements make an excellent case for making a page "specifically devoted" to Biblical literalism. On such a "specifically devoted" page, it warns that "even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth". I have presented solid competing arguments, and therefore represent neither as truth. I understand that you want to include something stating "1) "how prevelent" the POV's are and 2) "who holds these views"", but the guideline to which you linked states... "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source..." You are the one arguing for inclusion here, so the burden of verifying is yours, and not mine. As for POV-forking, that is your POV. I have already stated why I spun this page off.
      • If it makes you happy, please do. Arbeiter 21:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV policy is not the guideline covering when and how to create spinout articles. Just because the NPOV policy says extreme minority views can have their own articles does not mean we can ingore the specific guideline available to us in these situations: Wikipedia:Content forking. The part of the NPOV policy that is applicable to my criticism is not only the undue weight section, but the "Attributing and substantiating biased statements" section as well. We need to say a) who holds a veiw and b) how prevelent they are. I agree that this information needs to be verifiable. I just found it odd that you found one or two sentences in the NPOV policy that you thought supported creation of this article so you repeat them, while specifically ignoring the guideline that covers spinout articles. That's all.--Andrew c 13:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Between the "Redirect and "intro edits" sections, we have already covered these points, but I am glad to hear that irony is not completely wasted on you. --Arbeiter 10:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Literism>???

This article is silly. There is no theologian that identifiesthemself as holdingto "Biblical Literasismm". No citation is given. Why does this article exist but to diffuse the real topics?--DjSamwise 17:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Then why are you contributing to it?
• Perhaps that is because you misspelled it on your questionnaire to which ALL theologians responded.
• Really? At the time you claimed "no citation is given", I counted 67 Biblical references, 3 non-Biblical references, 23 Wikipedia sources that provide references of their own, and 2 non-referenced sources. But to make you happy, I will reach into my grab bag for a couple more.
• This article exists because someone clicked the "Save page" button. I apologize if this topic proved a distraction from your favorite topics -- A.K.A. "the real topics". I will no longer force you to read it. --Arbeiter 23:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into sarcastic comments, but I want to be straight forward. Can you name a single person who believes in biblical literalism who is notable under wikipedia guidelines. If so, why are they not cited in this article? If not, then does this article even need to exist?--Andrew c 00:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, This entire article is original research. There is no such doctrine as "biblical literalism". That's why there's no citation to anything substatial. --DjSamwise 00:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Name a single person? Read the article; his name is Luther, and he was already cited in the article.
• At the time you claimed "there's no citation to anything substatial", I counted 69 Biblical references, 3 non-Biblical references, 23 Wikipedia sources that provide references of their own, and 2 non-referenced sources. "Substantial" is a subjective adjective that would normally be too loosely defined for a response. I could have let this slide for the other referrences, but I must object to the application of this phrase to "69 Biblical references"; 69 is a "substantial" number admired around the world. Even an atheist would claim references to the Bible are "substantial" when applied to Biblical literalism. Utter blasphemy! I will reach into my grab bag for a few more references to make you happy.

Thanks for responding. In all of Luther's writings "Biblical Literalism" is never mentioned. He believed in and used parables as well. Also, The Bible does not teach "Literalism" Jesus taught parables. The term "Literalism" is a -=STRAW MAN=- term. There's no such doctrine as shown by lack of citations. --DjSamwise 12:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion

This entire article is original research. There is no such thing as a doctrine of "Biblical Literalism". --DjSamwise 00:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Prod tags go in the main article space, not on talk. Second of all, wikipedia usually bottom posts, not top posts, so I have moved the latest two topics to the bottom of the page. Finally, I prodded this article around the time it was created, and the prod attempt failed. The next step is usually WP:AfD. I'd support redirecting this page back to biblical inerrancy, and merging whatever content is salvagable.--Andrew c 01:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As always, thanks for the wikitips. Secondly, any time the words "Biblical Literalist" are used we've got a problem because there are no Biblical Literalists. They keep trying to put someof this info in on inerrency but There is nothing about the various doctrines of inerrency that has anything to do with "literalism". The staunchest inerrentists still know when a parable is a parable. None would argue that there are no parables. What I'm saying is, please don't encourage anyone to go throw this term around another page. :)--DjSamwise 01:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. At this point in time, this article has 70 Biblical references, 4 non-Biblical references, 23 Wikipedia links that provide references of their own, and 3 non-referenced links. Every argument is backed by secondary sources, and all previous accusations in the discussion have been answered. Finally, I would like to remind all that this article presented solidly competing arguments, and therefore proposed nothing as truth. (UnSIGNED?)

DeleteAgain as noted above there is not one refference for the term "biblical literalism". None of the citations use the word Biblical Literalism. This whole article is one editer (Arbeiter) trying to proove a point. POV + OR --DjSamwise 13:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Prod was tried and contested in the last 24 hours.

I note this because prod can not be repeated, and neither the prod'er nor the deproder used an edit summary mentioning the prod. We should have some record that prod patrolers can find. GRBerry 14:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I also comment that this article would have very little chance of being kept if an AFD discussion was raised. My comments above explain why. GRBerry 14:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

OK, If this article is not deleted, then everything that is uncited by a reputable source, unverifiable by a verifiable source or an original claim needs to be removed or cited & verified by reputable souces.. starting with the first paragraph. This article is being quoted by other wiki articles as if it were a real school of thought held by teachers and theologians.. so it's kind of screwing up discussions in other articles... So for the good of all wiki, lets get everything that does not really verifiably exists as the belief of "Biblical Literalism" off wiki leaving only the good stuff. thanks. --DjSamwise 21:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Side note: If you are using the Bible to Proove a point.. that is Original Research.

extensive editing

OK, since no one has worked on this article or participated in the discussion recently other than me, I'm goingto start editing like a mad wikipedian. Anything that's OR or POV is getting nixed. --DjSamwise 14:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Whelp.. I've reconstructed most everything here and I am noticing my own POV all over the place. I think the problem is complete lack of reputable citable info on the topic, making this topic inherrently POV. Anyone who can help with real citations and definitions, please do. --Home Computer 21:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

biblical literalism

The topic in this article confuses the issues of Biblical Inerrancy/Infallibility, but a completely separate belief of Biblical Literalism does exist to an extent. This is a form of extremism, going well-beyond inerrancy and infallibility. Biblical Literalism is what's addressed in Matthew 13 and Mark 4. John 3 also sheds some light on this subject, as Nicodemus initially took a parable literally. While inerrancy and infallibility are nearly identical and widely-accepted forms of hermeneutics; literalism is completely different. In fact, the Biblical positions of inerrancy and infallibility outright reject literalism, based largely on the Scripture referred to above. On these grounds, Biblical Literalism defines itself as non-Christian. In light of this, Biblical Literalism should NOT redirect to either of the other two articles, and should be classified as not being a legitimate Christian belief. -- Dulcimerist 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. I definately appreciate you looking into this. The problwm, we now seem to be facing is that to demonstrate any of this we'd have to be publishing our original research. There isn't a whole lot written from the perspective you take on the subject, though your position seems completely verifiable in the Bible.. I have no idea where to take this article next. :) --Home Computer 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Christian Dogmatics" by Dr. Franz Pieper, Concordia Publishing House, Volume III page 317 (Translated into English) - "Every word must be taken in its first, that is, its proper meaning, until circumstances contained in the context or an express declaration of the writer compel one to substitute the figurative or symbolic meaning for the natural. If this principle were not observed, human language would cease to be a medium of intercourse. We would forever be in doubt whether a statement is to be taken literally or figuratively, that is, we would not know what the speaker or writer actually means. As the interchange of 'signifies' and 'is,' so also the interchange of the sign and the signified (signum pro signato, or signatum pro signo) results in 'suicide' of language." Dulcimerist 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Christian Dogmatics" by Dr. Franz Pieper, Concordia Publishing House, Volume I pages 193-370. (I'm not going to type all of that out!) --Dulcimerist 20:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice quote. Wish there was a way we could work that into the text easily.. --Home Computer 04:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the subject of Biblical literalism deals exclusively with how the Holy Bible is interpreted, then the only logical source to use on the subject is the Holy Bible itself. In doing some additional reading, it's appearing that true Biblical literalism doesn't exist, or cannot exist. I know of no religious groups who take this Scripture passage the literal way: Mark 9:43-48 - "And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.'" Somebody needs to provide verification that Biblical literalists performing these actions do indeed exist, in order for this topic to exist. --Dulcimerist 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There are Christians who take Mark 9:43-48 literally. It was a common practice in Medieval Europe, for example, to use this passage of scripture to justify the maiming of criminals to save their souls. The Inquisition was based in part on this. --ScienceApologist 01:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To take it literally would be for one to pluck out his own eye. --Home Computer∴Peace 14:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't read the history of the Inquisitions. This was, in fact, part of the trial by ordeal. Encouraging the criminal to pluck out his own eye was definitely done. --ScienceApologist 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

It is outrageously non-neutral for an article on "Biblical literalism" to consist of an introductory paragraph, followed by a section on "objections," and nothing else. I took a quick look at the prior history,and there was some material there once. Arguments against on a topic of opinion are rather pointless by themselves.

What is wrong? Has the discussion here scared away everyone who could write a reasonable explanation of the position? (I am not among those who could, but I came here to see the arguments)

The position that there are no believers in this today is inherently rather hard to defend. You would quite literally have to check the beliefs of every member of the more conservative churches. if the position is that there is no current citable literature on it, that too would take an extensive survey.

Even if both of the above were true, there has certainly been such a view in previous times, and that could serve as the focus of a respectable article.

There may also be such a view in other religions than Christianity, such as Orthodox Judaism or Islam. Even if not now, such views must have been expressed earlier. DGG 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, part of wikipedia is verifiability, and part of wikipedia is NPOV. We cannot give undue weight to minority views, and if a view is held by a very very extremely fringe minority, it shouldn't be represented at all. I disagree that we should search all of earth to find a source supporting literalism. This is part of non-notablility and things that wikipedia is not.--Andrew c 00:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The very problem with this article's existance is that it's a well documented case of a straw man argument, it's a term used to point the finger and proove the correctness of the one coming against literalism.. cause they don't exist. It makes for a tricky article indeed. --Home Computer∴Peace 02:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Article is due for a major overhaul. There are plenty of fundamentalists who adopt a literalist view (which is not, by the way, the view that every verse in the Bible is literal but that the historical and narrative expositions are literally (and plainly) true). What the article was describing before was indeed a straw man that nobody believed in. So we need to rewrite the article along the following lines:

1) what parts of the bible do literalists consider plainly intended to be interpreted as literal (Genesis, history of Ancient Israel, historicity of Jesus, miracles, etc.) and which parts do they not (poetic verses, parables, dreams, and stories prefaced with indicators that the text was supposed to be allegorical rather than literal)

2) what churches and denominations adopt the plain reading or literalist standpoint and which churches and denominations do not?

3) what are the controversies surrounding literalism (creation vs. evolution, Jesus seminar, belief in miracles and the "hand of God in history", the choseness of the state of Israel, etc.)

This is a beginning at least.

--ScienceApologist 01:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What what is the difference between literalism and inerrancy? If there isn't, then we need to merge these articles (which is what I have been suggesting all along). As for question #2, I don't believe anyone has found a single denomination or church that supports literalism, and we have been looking. But if we can find any more verifiable information that can be added, that'd be great. (I'm not against that or anything, I just have been unable to locate it myself). Good luck with the overhaul!--Andrew c 01:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Like Andrew said, citable notable proponents of literalism do not exist. I'd like to add, It's not a real doctrine. It's simply a term used to point the finger with. The article should be written as such. --Home Computer∴Peace 02:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to answer your questions fully.. 1. All of it. (per the sources) 2. a. None (per some sources) b. anyone who disagrees with us (per some others) 3. a. No one wants to be called a Literalist. b. Literalists cause racism and mental illness. Granted all the soures on the subject are.. somewhat POV. I'm afraid you've stumbled onto a theologically dirty word.. No one believes in the complete lack of parables but people who believe in the inerrent literal interpretaion of Genesis are often accused of that. So we cite what's there and document accordingly. Peace. :) --Home Computer∴Peace 03:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the "sources" you have selected (newreformation.org) are not reliable. Find sources that actually deal with biblical literalism as it is practiced. This third-rate source builds its own strawman and knocks it down. Hardly reasonable. Your own POV that no one wants to be called a literalist and that literalists cause "racism" and "mental ilness" is not cited by any notable sources.

You need to realize that the definition of literalism is NOT that the entire Bible is literal. It's that the historical and narrative parts of the bible are meant to be interpretted literally. In fact, there are many groups who hold to this. This is not inerrancy which holds that the God has inspired the scriptures to never be wrong because inerrancy doesn't make any claims for how one is to interpret the Bible. Literalism makes it clear that unless it is clear from context, the Bible is meant to be read plainly. It's as simple as that.

Now go out there and find some reliable sources and stop spamming with those websites. --ScienceApologist 11:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll help you out. Here are some reliable sources for what literalists believe and who they are:

• hxxp://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=61819 -- Roy Zuck
• Literal bible translation by Jay Green
• article pointing out that 22% of ECLA members are biblical literalists
• article from the Pew Forum pointing out that literalism is on the decline

--ScienceApologist 11:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Science, none of those links provides proof of a proponent of the literal interpretation of the Bible. "LIteral Translation" Is a wonderful thing but an entirely different topic. As a matter of contention, the links you provide further demonstrate that the the term Literalist is only used in refference of OTHER people. --Home Computer∴Peace 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Side note, there was only one link that actually dealt with the topic at hand. --Home Computer∴Peace 14:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to realize that you are relying on some very poor sources and have not done your research well. Literalism is alive and well in the context of Christian fundamentalism. Just because no one self-applies the term doesn't mean that no one is a literalist. You are the one who needs to do more research. And stop baldly reverting. Instead try to actually edit the article to include more information. --ScienceApologist 12:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

there are two positions which you are not differentiating

1. the Bible , or parts of it, are true in the literal sense only and that no other method of analysis is acceptable , and
2. the literal meaning of some or all parts must be true, in addition to whatever other interpretations there may be.

• The first position is an exceptional one, and I am not at all sure that any church holds it today--I think it may have been used historically against those who arrived at an allegorical meaning that another arty thought was excessive.
• The second is another matter, and is the traditional doctrine of the Catholic church and of the Jewish orthodox position, and perhaps the whole of Islam. In the Catholic tradition it is represented by Aquinas, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100110.htm --as one would expect, a very subtle interpretation whose exact meaning is perhaps deliberately unspecified.

So much for a "very very extreme fringe minority." DGG 03:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think you have the gist of the first position. The second is held by everyone? that believes in Christ. Paul even argued that if Christ didn't really literally exist that he would be the most worthless man of all.. certainly parts of the Bible have been verified by secular sciences and archeology.. it's been overwhelmingly agreed upon by virtually everyone that at the very least SOME of the Bible is true.. so I think we're dealing with the first category in this artcle. Peace. --Home Computer∴Peace 03:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

not quite by all. I am discussing this topic, but that does not mean I believe in the doctrine.I am willing to agree that those few chapters that can be confirmed in detail by historical sources are true.:) DGG 04:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't believe that "Biblical literalism" is a tenet of the Roman Catholic Church. Read the Catechism 115-119. Also, there is nothing about "biblical literalism" in the RCC article. And I seriously think that if you asked Wikiproject Catholicism or the editors of the RCC article to help out with the Catholic doctrine of Biblical Literalism, you'd get confused looks. What more, the Catholic position on the interpretation of scripture is presented already at the inerrancy article. Maybe I am confusing what you said, but it sounds like you are suggesting that this article focus in on the Catholic POV of how they interpret scripture? If that is the case, maybe we do need an article like that, but I doubt that "biblical literalism" is the correct title. But I could be wrong. Shall we discuss this with Wikiproject Catholicism?--Andrew c 03:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You will notice the term I used was "traditional Catholic doctrine" -- but look again at the Catechism--the notes cite Aquinas. To give a WP articles as authority for the content of other articles in the WP is a little illogical. Additionally, I think what concerns most of the editors here is the relationship of this doctrine to the Protestant sects. No fundamentalist Protestant church accepts Aquinas as authority. What we need here are real sources, and those who believe in the doctrine or some approximation thereof are the ones to help find them. I agree we need to find the customary title, and I think we need to more firmly distinguish from Biblical inerrancy, which seems to be a more general position. DGG

You may be right regarding needing additional clarification from inerrency. The intro keeps getting reverted to a very watered down, almost indistinguishable definition from inerrency. regarding Thomas Aquinas, I don't think he is any more a biblical literalist than Wesley or any other protestant figure. The term literalist is just not a real doctrine. --Home Computer∴Peace 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The first position is an exceptional one, and I am not at all sure that any church holds it today -- incorrect. There are plenty of churches who argue for a literal interpretation of the Bible. Most large denominations do not make this a tenet or part of their creeds, but plenty of small churches hold as a belief necessary for membership that the narrative/historical parts of the bible were intended to be read literally. These groups are not "big tent" and they tend to be less visible than the big churches (the largest evangelical churches leave some room in their statements of belief for allegorical interpreters), but they are out there. This really cannot be denied. --ScienceApologist 11:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Science I think the issue we are coming to here is that many churches accept "parts" of the Bible as literal. I've never heard of any part of the Bilbe as "entirely" literal as people who throw around the term literalist imagine. But as noted above, secular historians and scientists would argue that parts of the Bible are literally true. --Home Computer∴Peace 14:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you name these small Churches? --Andrew c 23:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One more time: Biblical literalism DOES NOT MEAN taking the Bible "entirely literal". It means applying plain reading and a literal interpretation to the parts of the Bible that the specific reader making the literalist claim believes are intended to be interpreted as literal. It is a movement that is specifically geared towards attacking those people who claim that historical narrative and exposition may be figurative (such as secular historians and scientists). Literalists say, "No, when it is clear from the context that the text is intended to be plainly literal, then the plainly literal meaning of the text is the correct and inerrant version". For example, the geneologies from Genesis are interpretted as literal ages by literalists whereas non-literalists obviously balk at human beings living to such ridiculous ages. This is a doctrine that is slightly different from inerrancy which makes no claim for whether a literal intent is ever found in the Bible. The Catholic Church, for example, has obliquely acknowledged that it is more than possible that there is no such intent, but is still a very big proponent of the inerrancy of the scriptures acknowledging the figurative and allegorical intent of many of the scriptures that literalists believe to have a literal intent.

Andrew, there are many such churches to chose from, but basically any church that subscribes to a plain reading of the bible without acomodating allegorical interpretation is a literalist church. Many Adventists are such people (though the largest Adventist demonination carefully avoids excluding all allegorical interpreters in their creed, though they strongly caution against this kind of "revisionism".)

--ScienceApologist 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Science, you seem to be inventing a new definition for the term which you believe wholeheartedly should be used but isn't cited and isn't agreed upon. Please don't change it again to that without an agreement from the rest of us edtiing this article. Observe the tag at the top of the discussion as well please. --Home Computer∴Peace 13:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you cannot change something to your own unverified state. I will stub the article. --ScienceApologist 13:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please demonstrate a source from someone who claims to be a Biblical Literalist claiming any definition of Literalism. And please don't one handedly try to ruin this collaberation to your own POV.. stick to the controversy tag, things will be ok. --Home Computer∴Peace 13:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

More resources on Biblical literalism

None of these indicate that biblical literalism doesn't exist, as some of the editors above would have us believe:

Defined:

• A definition (self-applied, I might add)

Scholarly articles on the subject:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Critical analysis:

• [4]

the above article discusses how the term may be less useful than other markers, but still admits that it is a present sociological conceptualization.

I would remind the readers that Wikipedia's job is not to change the discourse but to report on the discourse. It may be that biblical literalism is a misleading, pejorative, or contradictory term. However, that does not mean we can state plainly that it is this way when there are resources that use it as a simple marker. Criticism of use of the term or application of the term is fine, but stating as "fact" that there are no literalists is not verified.

ScienceApologist 13:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The first link you included is addressed on the Hermeneutic site but physisist that wrote the article is not using the correct theological terms. Also, he's not an expert and non-notable.

The other links don't actually say anything. Care to explain what this demonstrates? --Home Computer∴Peace 13:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thank you for those links and will use them to demonstrate the Straw mn principal involved, that the term Literalism is used to point the finger. --Home Computer∴Peace 13:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've provided additional scholarly links to the Contextual method vs. Biblical Literalism section to address the issue of author's intent so there is no misunderstanding it for Literalism. Peace. --Home Computer∴Peace 13:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It almost isn't worth discussing with someone who thinks that weblinks in the article to newreformation are good sources. These are academic sources which show that "literalism" as a term is used. It may not always be self-applied (though it is above), but it is used. Trying to claim it is a strawman, or that "no one" is a literalist is a definite POV and is not verified. --ScienceApologist 14:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't make personal attacks please. I have already incorperated these links into the article but they still don't demonstrate any one notable claiming a definition of literalism that they adhere to. It's all finger pointing. Which is exactly what a strawman is, easily refutable finger pointing. --Home Computer∴Peace 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT continue to insert newcovenant as a source. It is not reliable. Also, the resources you used to back up the claim that biblical literalism is always pejorative and a strawman weren't good either. You cannot rely on questionable sources such as questia as good references. --ScienceApologist 16:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, again, you have edited the definition of literalism to be the same as other techniques using sources that contradict the rest of the intro. --Home Computer∴Peace 16:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the quote you are refering to in the opening sentance was refering to translations. Also thr source is some dude that has no credentials in theology. --Home Computer∴Peace 16:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's getting increasingly difficult to follow your comments. I have provided reliable sources (at least printed publishing) whereas you have provided unvetted websites as your sources. In a fair evaluation, it's clear that my sources are closer to the spirit and the letter of WP:RS. The Dictionary is a well-respected source for evangelicals. The article is one that is well-considered among discussions of biblical literalism. Contrast this to newcovenant which really is "some dude's" website. --ScienceApologist 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I keep using the sources you provide by placing them in the article and allowing them to demonstrate the same information. So I totally appreciate your zeal in presenting additionaly materials but I do not think you are grasping the theological terminology as it's currently used.. for instance you keep changing the definition to either being all encompasing and contradictory to the reast of the article. Also, you don't need to delete entire paragraphs just because you disagree. I appreciate in your last edit you sarted using fact tags which is preffered. --Home Computer∴Peace 17:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What is so hard about this? You CANNOT use newcovenant website as a source. It is not reliable. Period. What you are essentially doing is redefining literalism out of existence, which is inappropriate. If you really think that what I'm defining is the contextual method then you need to give a cite that shows the two are different and deserve different articles. --ScienceApologist 17:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's as reliable as almost all the other sources here. I didn't choose it, I was the one that wanted the whole article deleted. :) But as it is, it's there and it's usable.

It's not reliable per WP:RS. Do not put it in again. Ditto for questia. --ScienceApologist 18:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you and I disagree, please don't remove it..again. Besides you were the one that introduced it. It's not the best but it's good to have in there being from a prof on religeous psychology.--Home Computer∴Peace 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is very clear that self-published internet sources should only be used as expositing the opinions of the people if they are notable. That's not what the sources were used for so removing them is very appropriate. --ScienceApologist 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

PLease stop removing material until we come to a consensus on it please. --Home Computer∴Peace 19:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing what material? I removed the suggestion that it is a "fact" that biblical literalism is a straw man and a pejorative since you could not provide any reliable sources to this effect. That's it. Everything else remains! --ScienceApologist 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

distinction

I think the definition distinguishing literalism & inerrancy is a good one. Now we need some examples of the use of "literalism", pejorative or otherwise. I think its worth some effort to find recent positive use. Perhaps we can go on to further improvements while we look. Unless I'm mistaken, St Augustine also accepted other means of interpretation, but he wrote an enormous body of work.

Perhaps we should discuss literalism as a reaction against the medieval over-allegories, but I'd need some examples.

it is obvious that those working on this article have very diferent viewpoints of Biblical interpretation, but we should be able to present this one fully --in a positive way, before criticizing it. And I think the wording of the criticism should speak for itself. There is no point in rehearsing the familiar arguemements against the literal truth of the Bible here. Inerrancy (& perhaps elsewhere) is the place. I think they are presented a good many times in WP and not very subtly in the least. I suppose I should say that since i personally regard the entire question as an extremely interesting one intellectually but without the least applicability to my own beliefs one way or another I might be considered neutral. I think we should set a good example to other controversial discussions. A viewpoint needs to be fairly presented before it can be attacked & defended. See Aquinas for the classic method. Let us also accept that the truth is not decided by the best argument. If it were, none of us might be very close to it :).

DGG 15:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliments. I encourage you to do some searches. Previous attempts at serahing for a positive use of this term have come up nulll and void which is what sparked the whole, should this even be an article debate (see way above). But now even I am convinced that the popular use of this term warrents its own article.. however here's a question I offer to, if it becomes clear that no notable figure or organizations positively identifies with this term and it's only used negatively, what would your proposal be then? To accurately document such a usage or to remove/mere the article entirely? Peace and thanks again. :) --Home Computer∴Peace 15:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Biblical literalism and the contextual method are the SAME thing

These two concepts are the same. When people in everyday conversation talk about biblical literalism they are definitely talking about the contextual method. The only controversy is whether Genesis or the miracles of Christ have a literalist context or not. Most contextual method adherents believe that they do, therefore they are biblical literalists in the common sense. --ScienceApologist 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and make an article called Contextual Method. It's a common hermenuetical technique that many people claim. Calling someone who follows that method a literalist insunuates they do not understand that there are parables.. the contextual method claims that when something is meant as a parable they take it as a parable. And Puhh LEASE, lets come to a consensus, at least let people explain to you the theoloogical terms in question before blanking parts of or the entire article again. Thank ya sir. Peace. --Home Computer∴Peace 17:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no one who claims that biblical literalism denies the existence of parables in the Bible.

I have removed problematic sources as well. --ScienceApologist 18:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhm.. did you read the sources? The first 4 sources should help. --Home Computer∴Peace 18:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources are not reliable. Please used published sources that are not just cruft from the internet. Thank you. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The LA times is cruft? --Home Computer∴Peace 18:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The LA times was not removed as a source. Newcovenenant and questia were. They are not to be reinstated. By the way, the LA times article does not state anything about literalists interpretting the parables of Jesus as literally true. --ScienceApologist 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Quit removing all the sources. You may not like them and they may not be the best individually but together they demonstrate what's out there. Quit removing material. --Home Computer∴Peace 18:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are the one removing material. I'm removing sources that do not conform to WP:RS. If there are other sources out there, find them and include them in the text. --ScienceApologist 18:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a guideline not a rule. And you and I disagree on which sources it applies to so let's come to a consensus before deleting any more material plz. --Home Computer∴Peace 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you are removing information about contextual method? Removing material is not going to solve your problems. --Home Computer∴Peace 19:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I kept all the information and added. It is you who are removing information. For example, you just removed an entire list of subjects that literalists interpret literally. --ScienceApologist 19:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Everytime you edit the page gets half smaller. :) Notice that? --Home Computer∴Peace 19:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You have now edited book quotes to say what you want them to say without even knowing the book. Are you going to fix that? --Home Computer∴Peace 19:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you confusing paraphrasing with quoting? --ScienceApologist 19:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Small Request

Could I ask that we have fewer, more significant edits here? I see about one every two minutes, and mostly long series by a single editor. It looks like my watchlist is on fire. GRBerry 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking discussion and agreement before significant changes would be a bonus as well. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Start over

Starting from the version of the article as it currently is, what do editors think are the major problems? --ScienceApologist 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is the most commonly used definition. I think we disagree on that. I thik you consider the definition for the contextual method as the same for literalism, they are quite different. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, we disagree on you removing sources that don't think are reputable enough. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see in the sources you quote a definition that says literalism is the belief that ALL scriptures are to be taken literally? --ScienceApologist 20:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hang with me I'll demonstrate, don't delete the stuff in the meantime. And.. thank you again for extending the olive branch, I believe it's sincere and I return the offer in kind. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Starting the 5th refference, "To be brief, a literal interpretation of this passage would be grotesque beyond imagination." The author describes the literalist interp as fire litterally coming out of the eyes and argues against the imaginary stance of the literalist. This is the classic straw man case. Next.. one sec. ;) --Home Computer∴Peace 20:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that is not what I asked for. Good try though. I asked for the DEFINITION that says taht literalism is the belief that ALL scriptures are to be taken literally. So this is not a good source, and it should be removed. Bye-bye 5th reference. --ScienceApologist 20:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even gotten through talking about the first source and you're bomBARDING this article on every side. :) I can't keep up man.. you type faster I guess that makes you the winner! --Home Computer∴Peace 20:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As your first analysis shows, you can't even understand the critiques I'm trying to make toward your arguments. I want to accomodate your opinion that literalism is a pejorative straw man, but that is an opinion to be reported, it is not a fact. Literalism as skeptics describe it is the belief that narrative and expository parts of the bible are literal. Do skeptics sometimes uses strawmen to attack this position? Sure! But that doesn't mean that the term itself is a strawman. More than this, you haven't demonstrated that ANYBODY uses the definition you are advocating. In fact, my suspicion is that not only does nobody use this definition, it is a definition concocted by the Conservative Christians to attack those who attack them. If they can claim that literalism is a doctrine that nobody holds then the skeptics who attack literalism look like they are tilting at windmills, don't they? --ScienceApologist 20:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I swear you're lagging out all of Wiki.. also, if conservative Christians use that definition of the term.. well wouldn't that mean somebody uses that definition of the term? As it was before you changed it 5 good sources, i'm pretty sure non conservative, demonstrated the use of that origial defintion. But you keep changing the definition, thus invalifating the sources.. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we can put both definitions in. But claiming that it is THE definition of the term is no good. The article as it currently stands talks about both definitions. Since the people that use it the most (according to you) are those that attack the conservative Christians, their definition should be the one that is lead with (which is what we now do). Does this make sense? --ScienceApologist 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but you've changed thier definition of what a literalist is. --Home Computer∴Peace 21:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrate it now, or I will start editting again. --ScienceApologist 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a major source of conflict is over what exaclt literalism is in the first place. The term is used generally, in a pejorative sense, to refer to any number of diverse views held by conservative Christians that generally contradict common knowledge of history, science, and reality. For example, if someone is a Young Earth Creationist, they can be considered a 'biblical literalist' because they assume Genesis 1-2 is a historical narrative. However, this term is very rarely used by the people it is meant to describe (GRBerry, during the AfD, did find a reference from a creationist group that used the term for itself). The problem is there is no defined, self-identified doctrine of 'biblical literalism'. So how do we reflect that in this article? Sourcing is an issue from all sides. I don't know how to proceede, and I don't know enough about this topic to contribute properly, so don't be shock is my participation level lowers. The recent edit warring has also been a turn off. If it continues, I may request page protection until issues can be worked out on talk. Good luck.--Andrew c 20:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's problem if the Christian conservatives play a zero-sum game when labels they don't like are applied to them. Relying on the sour grapes and building their own straw men that somehow "literalism" refers to the belief that the entire bible is literal may be what they believe, but it is not the definition of literalism. All we need to do is point out that they don't use the term to apply to themselves. But just because they don't use the term to apply to themselves doesn't mean that nobody uses the term. --ScienceApologist 20:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Science, wiki is not an us vs them game. It's US period. It's not about pointing out why Christians or anti-christians are stupid. The material is there, we need to accurately represent the material. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. None of this contradicts my last point. --ScienceApologist 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that Home Computer is a POV-pusher

How do you explain this edit? --ScienceApologist 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sciencappologist?

Question.. where are you getting your info? "Christian conservatives believe that in the commonly used fashion in modern media" Your statments regarding conservative Christians have no citations.. except for the citations I had placed originally, which no longer refer to what they were put in the article for.. per your changes..

Also, the definition you reverted to was discussed and taken down months ago. please see the discussion. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the citation you provide proves the point beautifully. The citations are to the fact that they believe that the modern media is attacking them with strawmen. --ScienceApologist 20:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So we now have an E.g. and if you can find a source that says the same thing as newcovenant but is reliable, we'll be golden. --ScienceApologist 21:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe Science, did you even read it?--Home Computer∴Peace 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Did you? --ScienceApologist 21:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be sure, you read the LA times refference.. "We should be honest and give up the hypocrisy of claiming, "I am a biblical literalist," when really everyone is a selective literalist". It was originally used as source for the long lost definition.. now I'm not sure why you've put it where you did. --Home Computer∴Peace 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd point out that the article did not say that biblical literalism was the belief that the ENTIRE BIBLE is to be taken LITERALLY. What the author was pointing out was that some people believe that way, but he didn't make any claims as to who believed that way. Which has been my point all along. --ScienceApologist 21:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of the citation was to demonstrate that the term "Biblical Literalist" refers to a doctrinal stance that doesn't believe in metaphores. I provided several links demonstrating that.. I also provided several links demonstrating conservative christian scholars rejecting the position of literalist.. I am not sure what you are doing rearranging them all but now the article is all mixed up. --Home Computer∴Peace 21:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To say it aother way You believe that conservatives believe that Biblical literalism is used against them to say that they deny allegory and parable. However, the actualy quotes (qhich were deleted/removed/reorganised) and citations demonstrate that it's a commonly held belief among all types that people called Biblical literalists believe parables and metaphores should be interpreted literally. That's the main issue here. And that's the main point that should be stressed in the definition.

Again, the sources that were up demonstrated a belief by people acrost the board that Biblical literalits believe parables and metaphores should be interpreted literally. Let's not water it down so we can pin it on someone. Theres not a notable enough group to pin it on to, which is what makes it a straw man. I hope you read and consider that. --Home Computer∴Peace 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I went through the resources very carefully and cited them properly. The sources do not demonstrate that "literalists believe parables and metaphores[sic] should be interpreted literally". That's a mischaracterization of the sources as well as being patently absurd because there is no such thing as such a "literalist". The sources state that there is a sense in which someone can use "literalism" as a lazy-sort of intellectualism and effectively build straw men. I placed this quote in the article as it is actually what the sources say, your paraphrasing was biased.--ScienceApologist 12:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Each one of these articles (and more that were removed) at one point identifies the Biblical Literalist as ones who reject parable, metaphore and symbolism and thus take the Bible at it's literal meaning. The examples used are from Genesis to Jesus to Revelation. Some spoke of the suppose Literalist interpretaion of prophesy ans grotesque because fire would have to pop out of Jesus' eyeballs. somespoke of Jesus life and times, some spoke of obvious flaws in an literalist interpretation with the dispensations in Revelation.

The straw man most often used in these articles is to paint different types of Christians as believing something they do not. These sources come from a variety of communities and each points its finger at some type of Christian whether it be all Christians, political right, conservatives, protestants or fundamentals to be call Biblical Literalists due to some stance they've taken that should have been interpreted as a metaphore or parable instead. This seems to be a common theme in our culture, Literalism thrown around as a way to make our oppenents posittion easily defeatable without actually understanding it. The whole truth is much more complex. There are a hundred and one interpretaional techniques and a billion individual applications of those techniques. Nameing anyone one a Biblical Literalist that is more literal than I on any given position is what we're seeing. Peace. --Home Computer∴Peace 16:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

^ Gerald T. Sheppard "Future of the Bible: Beyond Liberalism and Literalism", United Church Pub House (June 1990)

^ George Regas "Take Another Look At Your Good Book". Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2000

^ http://www.astronomynotes.com/science-religion/truth-metaphor.htm

^ http://www.berith.org/essays/esch/esch23.html

^ http://www.newreformation.org/literalism.htm

^ http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332

^ http://www.whosoever.org/editorial/literal.html

Yep, and the current version of the article illustrates what you are saying. So where is your complaint? --ScienceApologist 19:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually like the current one. You included the relevant information in an appropriate manner. I wrote the above at your request.

But now that you mention it, the new version intro is messy looking. That quote doesn't belong there right in with the definition, it should be further down and cleaner, not just thrown in like that. Also The Ewell dictionary quote should be coupled with info on the historical method because that's what it is describing.

Basically I like the information that's there right now, edit.. I would rearrange to make the distinction between the historical method and the strawman technique of calling people a literalist more clear. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, then you can start to edit it at the this /Temp page. I've copied the source over there so we can discuss. --ScienceApologist 20:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, check out this page: Hyper-Calvinism I like the president set by this page and think we could/should do something simmilar in terms of how it highlights the modern usage of the term. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I checked out that page and I did find a few things in common: the prose was clumsy, the capitalization nonstandard, the participles hanging, and the pronouns equivocal. We had similar problems in the previous version of this article. There are some obvious differences: literalism is a more immediate and recognizable term. More people know what a "literal interpretation of the Bible" is meant to imply than know what "Hyper-Calvinism" is supposed to mean.

I'm not too enthralled by the absolute naming of Hyper-Calvinism as a pejorative in that article, but I don't have enough research about the subject to discuss that there. However, I am certain that here "biblical literalism" is not always a pejorative. Sometimes it is simply a placeholder or a descriptor. Therefore, I would not be content if you stated baldly that "biblical literalism" is necessarily pejorative but would be fine if you could find a citation that indicated as much.

--ScienceApologist 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

For starters, I'm an Eastern Christian, not an Evangelical, but it seems the anti-Christian polemicists have expanded the definition of "Biblical Literalism" far beyond how it is applied among Protestant Fundamentalists.

Eastern Christianity,unlike Western Christianity, takes a more Platonistic allegorical approach to interpreting the Bible, yet we believe in the Virgin birth, the literal resurrection from the dead, the immorality of divorce, homosexuality, etc. Opponents of Christianity, especially those intent upon normalizing homosexuality, have broadened the definition of Biblical literalism far beyond what it means to its adherents.

Young Earth Creationism, that's biblical literalism, the refusal to see spiritual allegories in the stories of the Flood, Creation, etc., that's Biblical literalism. The funny thing I see is that atheists are frequently more literal in their mocking misunderstanding of the Bible than the vast majority of traditionally minded Christians.

That's my two cents.--FidesetRatio 04:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

metaphor

I think every interpretation from the beginning has included the use of metaphor and similar literary devices within the scope of literalism. Jesus as recounted in the gospels was not speaking of removing physical specks from one's actual eye. Since the most striking literary device in the gospels is the parable, this must have been evident to every hearer and reader, even the least sophisticated. But I would think there would be room for consderable debate about just what is to be taken as a device and what meant literally. The Jewish interpretation for centuries of a hand for a hand, has been: "that is, the value of a hand." (whereas most contemporary criticism thinks the literal meaning was originaly intended, especially because of the similarity with other near Eastern law codes.) DGG 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.. that's why the term Biblical literalism is so contentious. Everyone uses metaphores in thier understanding of scripture.. (including Jesus as you pointd out).. yet everyone who uses the term Literalist claims that the accused is not considering topic a,b,or c as a metaphore as they should. And then another person comes calling someone else a literalist fort not believing x,yor z is a parable. A literalist is alsways someone who is more literal concerning any portion of the Bible than the accuser basically.. --Home Computer∴Peace 17:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Side note, that's the main usage of the term in culture. There are others who've attempted to make a more sensical definition of the word which should also be in the article (and is) but in that sense it seems to be a misunderstanding of a real hermeneutic model. --Home Computer∴Peace 17:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because the literalist is more literal than the accuser doesn't mean that the accuser is claiming that a literalist interprets the entire Bible literally. This is an obvious logical fallacy you are making, Home Computer. --ScienceApologist 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, please don't talk about me, talk about the sources. --Home Computer∴Peace 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But the sources don't support what you're saying, as I have just pointed out. They support that there are times when anti-religious folk use biblical literalism as a straw man (that's in the article) but they don't support the contention that the definition of biblical literalism is the belief that the entire Bible should be interpreted literally. --ScienceApologist 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Last Night's Revert

Last night's revert was inappropriate. It is not acceptable to roll-back two months of good faith editing by multiple users to a prior version by the reverting user with no more description than "rv pov pushing". I am reversing this. I have the page on watch list, and the changes were not obviously wrong. The user that reverted should actually engage with the edits that were made and with other editors, not do something that looks like an attempt to WP:OWN the article. GRBerry 14:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would note that there was no discussion as to why homecomputer annonymously reverted back to his version (see the above sections). I'll also note that it wasn't there for two months. If you have specific problems with the version I reverted to, discuss it here. As it is, I can accuse you of owning it as much as you can accuse me. --ScienceApologist 18:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you didn't say in your revert message which version you were reverting to, it's hard to tell. But it is not at all reasonable to revert to a version that is a month and a half or more out of date, during which time several editors have made changes. -- Cat Whisperer 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not more than a month and a half out of date. The version reverted to was the one done before the annonymous changes (2 Decemeber). --ScienceApologist 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you've just broken the 3 revert rule. You've reintroduced spelling errors, e.g. "Normal Geisler". I'm not going to re-revert right now, but I would appreciate an itemized list of what you've changed and why it was for the better. As it stands, your actions give the impression that you feel all the other editors of this article are idiots who should just get out of your way. -- Cat Whisperer 19:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read the talkpage above. It explains everything. Thanks for letting me know about the spelling of Norman Geisler's name. I'll note that there are many more orthographic errors in the version you reverted to than the version I'm advocating. And I didn't break 3RR. I will itemize if you would like, but I haven't seen any evidence that you've read the talkpage before you began making unfounded declarations. --ScienceApologist 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It was User:71.103.74.182 who had fixed Norman Geisler's name; I just noticed it when I tried to figure out why you were reverting everyone else's contributions to this article. Don't bother with itemizing the changes for me, but I do think it would be a nice gesture if you would examine the edits that you reverted for any other improvements that were lost. The article is never going to improve if it just keeps on going back and forth between two versions, even if your version has fewer orthographic errors.

I do apologize for claiming that you violated WP:3RR. I miscounted. -- Cat Whisperer 00:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I went back and switched it to the old format. I used current edits to grammer and content but updated a few links, moved the cumbersome opening paragraph to where it was previously, cleaned up allot of weasele words, etc.. --69.244.153.46 23:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

--69.244.153.46 22:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tag Removal

I removed the tags, there doesn't appear to be any major contention currently regarding the content of this article. --68.22.19.194 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I can support the tag removal. I haven't been looking at this much lately, but agree that the article is in much better shape than when they were first added. GRBerry 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's calming down and looking good. :)--69.244.153.46 22:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Literalists reported views on sex" section

Why is this section here? It contains four external links, is placed above the section "Further reading", implying that it is different than these. How does this section contribute to this article? Or does it not contribute at all, which is my first take. From the history I see that Filll converted bare html links to wikified links in June, and that Home Computer added it in October 2006, a day before the article got protected for edit warring. But I can't see that anyone has done anything with it other than that. I think it adds nothing to the article and should come out. Does anyone have any reason for including it? GRBerry 17:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Removed, as no feedback was received. GRBerry 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguments Against section

Earlier today, an IP editor removed the "Arguments Against" section from the page. It sure sticks out like a sore thumb as the worst part of the page, in that it is the least like a good encyclopedia article. It is just a string of quotes, without any narrative structure, any identification in the text of who said them, et. cetera. So I didn't object to pulling them out, but I see that someone else has reverted that IP edit.

This has been an issue before, see #Criticisms above, and to a lesser extent Talk:Biblical literalism/Archve 1#Redirect (when the whole article was in that format). What are we going to do about it? I suspect that complete removal is not the best solution, but the list of bullet points remains a negative feature of the article. GRBerry 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed Support section

Not sure if this helps make the article any better but there was an entire section devoted to labeling adherants of inerrency as biblical literalists. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify churches that support a literal view on ceratin scriptures would not say they are "Biblical Literalists" nor would they fit the primary definition of it. They would claim biblical inerrency, a subtle but important difference. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Main problem for consieration

I think part of the problem with this article is that there are two definitions used in the literature but the term is not actually scholarly term to begin with. Either your talking about the pejoritive term (finger pointing for being too literal and unintelligent) or you using the word as short hand for believing in inerrency and trying to determine author's intent. So.. this should really be two separate articles that in themselves aren't really notable. Good luck with this one guys. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible solution

Since the term 'Biblical literalism' is primarily a perjorative aimed at at people who adhere to a literal interpretation by those who advocate a less literal approach (there is no movement calling themselves "Biblical literalists") this article should focus primarily on the term "Biblical literalism" and not deal with the beliefs of Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Biblical inerrantists, and other self-described groups, except to explain that the term is used by their opposition to refer to them.NZUlysses (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the definition could use some clarification.

Literalism is generally associated with a belief in inerrancy, but does the definition of literalism necessarily imply inerrancy? In other words, is literalism the belief that the stories of the Bible are literally true, or merely that a literal interpretation was intended by the author? For example, suppose somebody says, "The world was not actually created in six days. However, the author of the first chapter of Genesis meant to say that it was. He did not intend it as an allegory." Is that a literalist statement? Capedia (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The definition definitely needs some clarification. Obviously many many fundamentalists and evangelical Christians say that they like to interpret the Bible 'literally'. The scholarly approach mainly talks about 'inerrancy', not the 'literal truthfulness' of the Bible, leaving open the possibility that the Bible never errs but sometimes makes statements which are only allegoricallly or figuratively true. Some fundamentalists would probably disagree with this approach, but they'd be unlikely to describe themselves as "Biblical literalists" even though they espouse interpreting the Bible literally - this would be just one facet in their general adherence to Fundamentalism. NZUlysses (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Principle of perspicuity

The section heading "principle of perspicuity" is technically correct, but is probably obscure to the average reader. I think it should be renamed "Clarity of Scripture." Comments?Lamorak (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Figurism

The opposite and contrary approach is called Figurism, there is an interesting article here (translation required) that talks about the movement's relationship to Jansenism. ADM (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Additions

I'm expanding upon the definition: adding letterism as referenced by several authors, plus explain usage of the term as found commonly and in academic writings. Later I will add the foundational concepts and a history section. Lamorak (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please check if this is an error?

This is from the main article (Clarity of scripture) ...

What the clarity of scripture does deny is that the Bible is not a code to decipher, or that it cannot be understood apart from....

Is this an incorrect double negative? Shouldn't it rather read what the clarity of scripture does deny is that the Bible is a code to decipher etc ? Otherwise it is a clumsy and confusing sentence construction, and means the opposite of what it intends 88.105.255.240 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pejorative

The term 'Biblical literalism' is listed in Wikipedia as a pejorative. Recently an editor who wishes to use the term in another article has removed from this article any reference to the fact that it is a pejorative term. This is POV editing, and clearly self-motivated. There is plenty of evidence that 'Biblical literalism' is widely considered and used as a pejorative:

• Laurence Wood, 'Theology as History and Hermeneutics', (2005)
• George Regas, 'Take Another Look At Your Good Book', Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2000
• Dhyanchand Carr, 'Christian Council of Asia: Partnership in Mission, Conference on World Mission and the Role of Korean Churches, November 1995

Any number of Websites could also be provided demonstrating the common pejorative use of the term. Sufficient evidence was provided in the article to demonstrate that this term us commonly used as a pejorative. That evidence has now been removed without explanation. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the article should mention that the term Biblical literalism' is often used as a pejorative.Lamorak (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there was a section on this in the article not all that long ago (see this version). It wasn't great, but it did have one example of pejorative use of the term, and an example criticizing such use. EastTN (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the whole section of "Modern Usage" should be placed back in the article.Lamorak (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've added back the section on the pejorative use from the version I mentioned above. I did not bring in the entire Modern Usage section, because it appears that some of the other text has been moved to other places. EastTN (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal

I removed "On the other hand many passages in the scriptures reveal an understanding of natural laws that are surprising for its time. The shape of the earth, and how it is supported.(Isaiah 40:22,Job 26:7),life in the womb and DNA (Psalm 139:13-16)" Because, it doesn't belong under the heading pejorative use (since it seems to be a rebuttal to above mentioned professors and their opinions not a further example of pejorative use). Also the language is biased. The wording "in the scriptures" suggests that there is only one set of scriptures and "surprising for it's time" is subjective and unacademic. Finally the cited verses do not suggest the claims that are made. Isaiah 40:22 describes the Earth as a "circle" with god enthroned above it suggesting (if taking literally) that the earth is flat. Psalm 139:13-16 refers to a book with a fetus' future written in it, but this is way more likely to be a metaphor about destiny and implication that life is predetermined than a description of DNA. Certainly, the wording that "the scriptures reveal an understanding of natural laws" is unsupported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.164.241.230 (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

I happened upon this article while reading about Afrocentrism. An editor/administrator placed this article in the same category "historical revisionism," into which Afrocentrism certianly falls. Biblical literalism, however, does not fall into that cateogry. The article is informative, but it appears that some of the categories into which this article is lumped reflects a bias or in the very least an attempt to paint adherents to literal interpretation of the Christian Bible as persons who are historical revisionists or fringe groups. In the interest of being an enclyclopedia, I think the categories, which as all we who edit know can certainly skew and paint in a false light, should be less inflamatory. Being bold, I reverted what seems to be POV opinion and removed the category. Anyone else agree/disagree? Thanks,--75.3.157.0 (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There are most certainly historical groups that take the Scriptures, by and large, literally. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 20:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Same as inerrency. MERGE?

There is no difference between the definition of inerrency and literalism. The article even cited the chicago convention on inerrency to define literalism. Can we merge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.65.89 (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Propose renaming to scriptural literalism

The phrase biblical literalism suggests this article can cover only the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible, but not other religious texts (Qur'an, Avesta, ...), and that it can't compare/contrast with religions that explicitly reject scriptural literalism (e.g. Quakers).

Scriptural literalism is currently a redirect to this article. An alternative is to make that into a separate page that sends readers to more specific articles. The article Qur'anic literalism already exists separately, so this might be a good way to go. There's also a small bit at Higher criticism#Higher criticism of other religious texts, though that's not precisely the same thing. --Underpants 02:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I support this change. I was hoping to add a wikilink to the term 'literalism' in another article, where a link to scriptural literalism would be fine, and a link to biblical literalism would be too narrow. Ben (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I also support this change.Lamorak (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support this change. Literalism isn't restricted to Christianity, or even Judaism and Christianity, but is found in at least one sect of every religion that has a scripture that I know of. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 19:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

NO WAY. :) All the citations are specifically about the Bible. Should you want a separate article about scriptiral literalism and have reliable sources, go ahead and make one! :) We can't just make up terms like we're the experts. 69.245.65.89 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Propose renaming to Biblical fundamentalism or Biblicism

I propose renaming the page to one of the alternatives given at the start where it says: "Biblical literalism (also called Biblicism or Biblical fundamentalism)" - rename it to Biblicism or Biblical fundamentalism as these are the main and I think correct terms not Biblical literalism. Biblical literalism can redirect to the renamed page. Mcarans (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that. Certainly not Biblical fundamentalism; it's not the same things at all. Biblicism is too obscure. Myrvin (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, why does the start of the article say: "Biblical literalism (also called Biblicism or Biblical fundamentalism)"? Mcarans (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that BF was there. I'm not sure I think it should be. Biblical fundamentalism seems to be a sort of Christian fundamentalism, with particular reference to the book. Literalism seems the most appropriate designation. Fundamentalism doesn't get t the literal part. Myrvin (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I see several dictionaries with literalism or biblical literalism but not biblical fundamentalism. See [5]. Myrvin (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

No such word: "letterism"

This whole article is a mess, starting with the fact that the word letterism (from lettrism) is a French avant garde movement and nothing to do with "mechanical literalism". "There are two kinds of literal interpretation, letterism and the more common historical-grammatical method."

The article attempts to redefine the meaning of the word "literalism" just because the word "biblical" is in front of it. The basic problem is that the "historical-grammatical" method is a non-literal approach to Bible interpretation not a subcategory of literalism. Mcarans (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither of us may have heard of it before, but the word appears in several books on the Bible. Look at this search:[6]. Perhaps more importantly, it is used by the cited source [7]. Myrvin (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the reason why the word "letterism" (which isn't in any dictionary) has been invented is because the word "literalism" has been redefined. However, "literalism" should not be redefined because it already has a clear meaning in the dictionary - essentially the meaning for which "letterism" has been used.

Imagine if we redefined "apple", deciding that a "Biblical apple" = a banana! Just because a few authors decide on a new definition, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should then effectively legitimise the change by becoming its megaphone, making what would have remained an unknown definition accessible and hence familiar to everyone.

My preference would be that "Biblical literalism" be deleted. My second preference would be to redirect it to a new Wikipedia article on "letterism" making it clear that the term is currently only being used by a few authors writing about Bible interpretation who don't accept the dictionary definition of "literalism" (then give their definition of "literalism" which includes the "historical-grammatical" method in the "letterism" article). If both suggestions are too controversial (or perhaps as a first edit while consideration is taken of other options), then the "Biblical literalism" article could say that strictly, the term means ... and give the dictionary definition, but loosely it is taken by some Christian groups to include the "historical-grammatical" method. Mcarans (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a new word being invented by technical authors - It happens all the time. Someone must have invented lettrism. I don't really understand what your objection to it is. Is there some sectarian divide of which I am not aware? - Those who use letterism and those who don't? It seems to make sense from the sources. As long as there are reliable sources that use the word, there is nothing wrong with the article reflecting that. In fact, it probably ought to. Myrvin (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no article on "letterism" in Wikipedia that gives the same definition as used here. This is inconsistent.

More importantly, this article attempts to redefine the word "literalism" to include the non-literal "historical-grammatical" method. It is later explained that the term "Biblical literalism" is pejorative, but someone looking to understand Bible interpretation methods will get the impression that literalism means something else when applied to the Bible when it only does so for a small minority of people. Mcarans (talk) 10:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

However, checking the actual citation for this, I am now dubious about its meaning. The source actually says: "In other words literalism is not the same as letterism." However, letterism is used there. Eg. later on (p 118) it says: "The accusation so frequent in current theological literature that Fundamentalism is a literalism is not at all what we have in mind when we use the word “literal.” The word is ambiguous. To some scholars the word “literal” means “letterism” and this is really what they mean when they say Fundamentalists are literalists." Myrvin (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, see Biblical literalist chronology#Literal interpretation. Myrvin (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for the article and the other you mention to highlight the ambiguity the author discusses because the way it is phrased at the moment implies that the definition is certain and well understood. Saying "there are two kinds of literal interpretation" suggests that letterism and the historical-grammatical method together = literal interpretation. They are alternative interpretation methods, with one group (the Fundamentalists and perhaps those wishing to use the term as a pejorative) claiming that the historical-grammatical method = literal interpretation (and that letterism = hyperliteralism from the book you quoted) and everyone else saying that letterism = literal interpretation. Mcarans (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree we need to say more about this in the text. We'll have to work something out. Myrvin (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I propose making the text up to the end of the Background section as follows:

"Biblical literalism is a term used inconsistently by different authors. It can have one of two possible meanings. It can equate to the dictionary definition of literalism: "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense", where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical". This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text.[6] Alternatively, the term can refer to the historical-grammatical method, 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. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[5] It does not necessarily lead to complete agreement upon one single interpretation of any given passage. This fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians,[3] in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christians.

Background

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.[7][8][9]A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."[10]" Mcarans (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks mostly good. You can't say "used inconsistently by different authors", you probably mean "used differently by different authors", unless an individual authors are inconsistent. I know you don't like letterism, but the Ramm reference uses it:[8], and readers may be looking for it. Myrvin (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok I edited the page including your helpful changes. Mcarans (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Creating a category for all religions who believe in creationism

I've been trying to get the ball rolling on creating a category for all religions that believe in creationism. This would, of course, include for example the seventh day adventists. Please contribute to this discussion here Would_there_be_a_way_of_categorising_religions_which_believe_in_creationism and if you are able, help bring this about. Thank you. In Citer (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source, but true?

I raise an objection with the following portion of the Criticism section:

Steve Falkenberg, professor of religious psychology at Eastern Kentucky University, observes:

I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat, it has pillars, and will not be moved (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26). ...

It's cited by a 'reliable source', but that doesn't signify its truth. I'm raising the issue with the Bible verses presented. For instance, Job 41 never mentions the 'edges of the earth,' but describes Leviathan, which was a sea monster. Psalm 104:24-26 says:

24 How many are your works, Lord!

   In wisdom you made them all;
   the earth is full of your creatures.

25 There is the sea, vast and spacious,

   teeming with creatures beyond number—
   living things both large and small.

26 There the ships go to and fro,

   and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

This verse has no inclination towards any 'edges of the globe'. It's talking about the seas only, not the edges of them.

I think this portion should be removed, despite the fact that it is criticism of Biblical literalism, because the verses it uses to criticize Biblical literalism are somewhat faulty. Surely there's a better example of Biblical criticism somewhere out there?

Iheartthestrals (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Views stated with attribution do not necessarily have to be "right", they simply reflect the viewpoints of their author. Besides, there are many Bible translations, and some do translate the verses that way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

So, (I ask this out of curiosity only, as I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia policies) if a Christian journalist writing for a 'reliable source' was to take the words of, say, Richard Dawkins out of The God Delusion and completely paraphrase them into suggesting that Dawkins believes in God, and it was published in a reliable source, could that be included in the Debate section in The God Delusion article, even if the very notion of the argument was utterly absurd? Just a question.

Surely there is a better example of Biblical criticism in the vast expanse that is the Internet, though. I'll look into the matter and see if I can find something that actually holds valid criticism. It's rather difficult, as most atheist (or anti-Biblical) writers oftentimes take completely invalid arguments and twist them violently instead of searching for valid arguments. That's one issue with Wikipedia policies, I find, in that anything published in a reliable source can be named as 'truth,' even if it is completely the opposite.

Oh, and I thought I should mention something else. I went over Psalm 104:26 in about twenty of the most prominent translations (courtesy Biblegateway.com), and none of them actually mention anything about the edges of the earth, so I can't agree with that last point, but that's really not important to this miniature discussion. Iheartthestrals (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think what Falkenberg is getting at is the very existence of Leviathan, frolicking or not. According to the bile the leviathan has seven heads and a serpent-like body - needless to say, not such beast exists. PiCo (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Biblical literalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newreformation.org/literalism.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biblical literalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215060317/http://www.notesfromtheroad.com/neotropics/soberania_17.html to http://www.notesfromtheroad.com/neotropics/soberania_17.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biblical literalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115025545/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)