Why are literalists literalists?

It seems that the vast majority of christians can believe that the bible is a holy book containing the revealed word of god and at the same time accept that at least some of the stories in the bible, the garden of eden, the flood, etc, are allegorical tales, told not to relate actual historical events, but to convey a moral, or message. Literalists, however, insist that every word is literally true, and if the bible says something happened, it happened just exactly that way.I assume that most literalists believe in the truth of every word because of their faith in the inerrancy of god, and not the other way around. In other words, they first came to accept that god was divine and infallible and, from that, concluded that every word he says must be true. They did not conduct an in-depth investigation into everything in the bible, discover that all of it was true, then come to believe that god was infallible.I further assume that, if some discovery were to come to light that proved, beyond any shadow of a doubt, and without possibility of error, that some part of the bible were incorrect, that would not cause most literalists to abandon their faith in god.I'd like someone to explain to me why it is so necessary to their faith that every word of the bible be literally correct. Please don't try to convince me, I'm an avowed heathen and quite happily so. But I must admit to confusion about why literalists are literalists. If someone could explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

While there are writings that are foundational to the development of religions, IMO, the individual believer also has a foundation on which they base their religion.If the foundation of a beliver's faith is that Adam and Eve were actual people who fell from grace, then it is very difficult for them to release that belief without having a spiritual crisis.As I understand it, if the Adam and Eve story or creation story were shown not to have happened as written, it would not shake the foundation of the Jewish religion. It is not their focal point if I understand correctly.The closest comparison I can think of is that it would be similar to someone providing proof that your beloved father of 40 years was not your father. You would end up in an emotional crisis.That's my personal view.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Essentially the dogma of their churches insists that the Bible is the literal word of God and must be accepted as literally true wherever possible. Never mind that this is at best based on a very questionable verse of one book of dubious authorship, and that the Bible is certainly not written as if God were the author of every single book.They often support their dogma with the assertion that the Bible claims to be the word of God (an argument that is not true, nor even one that they themselves beleive to be any good when they actually have to think about it). SOmetimes they take other verses out of context to try to support their assertion.In short the reaoon is because their religious authorities say so and they are beleived to be a higher authority than even the Bible itself. y

"Truth of every word" is a misrepresentation. We believe in the God-inspired message of the Bible, all of it, and believe that the original writings were perfect, though there may be slight differences since then, all unimportant differences.I read my way to belief, many many books on many religions at first, and then focused in on Christian writers, so I didn't get my belief in the inerrancy of scripture from a church or any particular authority. Inerrancy is affirmed by all the people who believe as I came to believe -- it's inherent in the character and powers of the God I believe in, you could say, a supernatural personal God who has the power and the will to superintend and preserve His revelation to us.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-03-2006 02:07 PM

Faith, do you consider the story of the flood to be literally true? Is that understanding crucial to your faith? Would not the bible be just a strong a document if the story was a morality piece, told for illustrative purposes rather than as a historical narrative?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I don't beleive your claim that you reasoned your way to the conclusion that the Bible is God's word. The mere fact that you use fallacious stock arguments to support the claim indicates that you simply beleived the claism of men over the Bible itself.

I believe that the words that later became the Bible were of God. The problem is that it was written and interpreted by men and reinterpreted and recopied by other men, many who were bearly literate.
An interesting point is that the 'Bible' didn't exist until men gathered together and voted on what was and what wasn't the Word of God... which happened AFTER God supposedly stopped communicating with man through Prophets. So... the Bible(s) as we have today, that many accept as the total Word of God, were handed down through interpretation, personal bias or desire of scribes and were sifted to fit the directions of leaders, many of whom were more political than spiritual, and without the guidance of God.Literalists ignore the development of the Bible and say that the 'canon is closed' and has been since the time of Christ yet accept the many versions and interpretations as inerrant. It seems there is no 'right and wrong', but just a lot of gray to fit the point of the day!If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then there cannot be different 'versions'. Anything but His Word as originally expressed is not correct.I think literalism in God's Word is correct, but there have been too many 'fingers in the pie' to say that the Bible is perfect.

If it WERE told as a morality piece for illustrative purposes, no problem, but it isn't. It is told as historical narrative. Yes I believe it to be literally true and have argued for it many times here at EvC.It accounts very well for most of the phenomena of the "geological timetable" based on the strata of the Geological Column, far better than the Old Earth and Evolution do.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-03-2006 03:59 PM

Sure, much like the way Rip Van Winkle is told as historical narrative, Sherlock Holmes is told as historical narrative, Robin Hood is told as historical narrative.

If someone were to find some evidence that conclusively proved to your complete satisfaction that it was an impossibility for the flood to have occurred, would that undermine your faith in the bible?I guess what I'm trying to get at is, does your faith depend on the bible being inerrant, or is there some amount of factual inaccuracy that you are willing to accept without doubting god's existence?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

What parts of the writing show this to be a historical narrative? I mean, as opposed to the writing in "A Tale of Two Cities" or "Ben Hur".What indicators in these two stories point to their being fiction and are pointedly absent from the Flood account?

Everything is fine so far, but re: Those of the mainstream geology persuasion will certainly contest that statement. But this topic is not the place to do such.Adminnemooseus

---

Thanks, I appreciate that warning.My point in this topic is not to challenge, but understand.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

I'm getting sick of this accusation.Somebody please finally get around to telling me why these are fiction, but The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich isn't, or why what you read on the front page of the newspaper isn't, or Darwin's journal about the voyage of the Beagle isn't, or choose the example yourself, you get the picture I'm sure.We all know your examples are fiction. The burden ought to be on you who are making the complaint that the Bible isn't history to show why it isn't instead of demanding that I prove to you that it is. It is obviously history. Show me exactly how other histories of the sort I've mentioned above aren't subject to exactly the same accusation you are making.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-03-2006 07:17 PM