Literalism, non-literalism and the interpretation of the bible

[David B]

<Mod Note: Posts split from thread on Resurrection (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1117)>


How is that supposed to be the case?
It isn't really the case. Statements like this are just a common way of sneering at atheists for daring to imagine that Christian doctrines are actually supposed to mean something. Maybe I should have put a smilie at the end of that or something. I didn't mean it as a blanket condemnation of atheists.

The problem I see is that many atheists want to make the Bible into a text book. The many Christians who do also is really the source of the problem, I will agree. But in my experience, the majority of Christians aren't the Literalist caricature that atheists like to sneer at.
Hev

Well, there are the literalists, who are a huge problem in terms of trying to use their wedge strategy to counter education about science.

On the other hand, there are the majority of Christians who don't read the Bible literally.

The problem for literalists is that they believe something demonstrably out of touch with reality.

The problem for the non literalists from the POV of the literalists is that to deny the literal truth of the Bible is to cast doubt on the truth of all of it.

And they have a point, don't they?

Once a Christian starts saying 'That bit of the Bible isn't really true' - then where do they stop?

The Virgin Birth? The Resurrection? The existence of Satan? The feeding of the five thousand? Walking on water? 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.'?......

Take all that away - and I think anyone would be hard pressed to provide any evidence for any of what I mention, among much more, then what is left?

David

[Hevvin Machine]

I don't know why people take this sort of thing so seriously. Resurrection is so beyond anybody's ability to comprehend there is just no reason to get your panties in a wad about the details.

Of course, a bunch of people at church think I'm a weirdo. It won't surprise me if the latte sipping atheists of this place do too. But something I've noticed on the Internet is that the atheists are more hard-core Bible Literalists than most of the Christians that I know in real life.
Hev

Actually, I know exactly what you mean. Most Christians are not biblical literalists. But it seems that many atheists on the net want the bible to be taken literally, I don't know why. Maybe because it's easier to get a handle on it, easier to laugh at it and reject it. And easier to reject those who really do believe in it literally.
I think it's also easier to reject the whole thing if you lump all Christians together with Fred Phelps and YEC and that sort.

On the other hand, Hev, don't make the same mistake in reverse. Most atheists aren't biblical-should-be-literalists, either. Nah, some of my best friends are atheists:rolleyes:
Hev

[David B]

I don't know why people take this sort of thing so seriously. Resurrection is so beyond anybody's ability to comprehend there is just no reason to get your panties in a wad about the details.

Of course, a bunch of people at church think I'm a weirdo. It won't surprise me if the latte sipping atheists of this place do too. But something I've noticed on the Internet is that the atheists are more hard-core Bible Literalists than most of the Christians that I know in real life.
Hev

Actually, I know exactly what you mean. Most Christians are not biblical literalists. But it seems that many atheists on the net want the bible to be taken literally, I don't know why. Maybe because it's easier to get a handle on it, easier to laugh at it and reject it. And easier to reject those who really do believe in it literally.
I think it's also easier to reject the whole thing if you lump all Christians together with Fred Phelps and YEC and that sort.

Well, perhaps it would be, but no-one I've ever come across has.

David

[Hevvin Machine]

Well, there are the literalists, who are a huge problem in terms of trying to use their wedge strategy to counter education about science.
The problem for literalists is that they believe something demonstrably out of touch with reality.
Totally with you here buddy. There are plenty of demonstrably out of touch people out there, many are also Christians. Sorry, what can I say? It's not like Christians have cornered that market.:dunno:

On the other hand, there are the majority of Christians who don't read the Bible literally.
The problem for the non literalists from the POV of the literalists is that to deny the literal truth of the Bible is to cast doubt on the truth of all of it.

And they have a point, don't they?

Once a Christian starts saying 'That bit of the Bible isn't really true' - then where do they stop? I don't have any problem with this, personally. I think for myself, and decide what I believe for myself.

I'm sure that you have heard that bit about mistaking the hand pointing at the moon for the moon itself. That is how I see the dilemma you are describing. There is no problem with the truthiness of the Bible as long as you understand that It isn't The Truth itself, it is a finger pointing at the Truth. The one thing that I am certain of concerning God is that God isn't contained by any human work, including The Bible.

The Virgin Birth? The Resurrection? The existence of Satan? The feeding of the five thousand? Walking on water? 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.'?......

Take all that away - and I think anyone would be hard pressed to provide any evidence for any of what I mention, among much more, then what is left?

David What's left is my own personal experience. You don't know me at all, so I don't expect you to take anything on my say so. But I haven't made any assertions about any Virgin Birth, or walking on water or Satan. I have only talked about my own personal experience.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

[QUOTE]I think it's also easier to reject the whole thing if you lump all Christians together with Fred Phelps and YEC and that sort.

Well, perhaps it would be, but no-one I've ever come across has.

David I have. Not all by any stretch, mostly not. Sorry if I didn't use enough qualifiers. But if you've never come across one ever, you can't have been on the internet much.
Hev

[David B]

Well, there are the literalists, who are a huge problem in terms of trying to use their wedge strategy to counter education about science.
The problem for literalists is that they believe something demonstrably out of touch with reality.
Totally with you here buddy. There are plenty of demonstrably out of touch people out there, many are also Christians. Sorry, what can I say? It's not like Christians have cornered that market.:dunno:

Indeed not!

On the other hand, there are the majority of Christians who don't read the Bible literally.
The problem for the non literalists from the POV of the literalists is that to deny the literal truth of the Bible is to cast doubt on the truth of all of it.

And they have a point, don't they?

Once a Christian starts saying 'That bit of the Bible isn't really true' - then where do they stop? I don't have any problem with this, personally. I think for myself, and decide what I believe for myself.

I'm sure that you have heard that bit about mistaking the hand pointing at the moon for the moon itself. That is how I see the dilemma you are describing. There is no problem with the truthiness of the Bible as long as you understand that It isn't The Truth itself, it is a finger pointing at the Truth. The one thing that I am certain of concerning God is that God isn't contained by any human work, including The Bible.

What sort of God are you talking about? A Creator God? A God interested in individual human beings, who will judge them, and may (or may not) be responsive to prayer? Some sort of pantheism? Deism? A trinity, like Brahma, Siva and Vishnu? Or what?

The Virgin Birth? The Resurrection? The existence of Satan? The feeding of the five thousand? Walking on water? 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.'?......

Take all that away - and I think anyone would be hard pressed to provide any evidence for any of what I mention, among much more, then what is left?

David What's left is my own personal experience. You don't know me at all, so I don't expect you to take anything on my say so. But I haven't made any assertions about any Virgin Birth, or walking on water or Satan. I have only talked about my own personal experience.
Hev

Personal experience I sort of understand. It was personal experience that led me to devote years of my life to a religious life.

David

[lpetrich]

Most Christians are not biblical literalists.
Who's a "literalist" and how did you figure that out? I don't see a lot of people angrily denouncing literalism as an absolutely wrong way to interpret the Bible. And I don't see anyone claiming that True Christianity includes acknowledging Biblical errancy.

If a "literalist" believes that every word of the Bible is literally true, then even the most hardboiled fundies do not count as literalists -- look at what many fundies do with:

The flat-Earth and geocentric parts
The Song of Solomon
The Books of Daniel and Revelation

They try to explain away the first two, and they argue at great length that the third contains elaborate allegories of future history.

But it seems that many atheists on the net want the bible to be taken literally, I don't know why. ...
Like who might you have in mind?

The problem I see is that many atheists want to make the Bible into a text book. The many Christians who do also is really the source of the problem, I will agree.
You guys aren't trying very hard to rebut them.
But in my experience, the majority of Christians aren't the Literalist caricature that atheists like to sneer at.
Again, who's a "literalist" and how did you figure that out?

The problem for literalists is that they believe something demonstrably out of touch with reality.

The problem for the non literalists from the POV of the literalists is that to deny the literal truth of the Bible is to cast doubt on the truth of all of it.

And they have a point, don't they?

Once a Christian starts saying 'That bit of the Bible isn't really true' - then where do they stop?

The Virgin Birth? The Resurrection? The existence of Satan? The feeding of the five thousand? Walking on water? 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.'?......

Take all that away - and I think anyone would be hard pressed to provide any evidence for any of what I mention, among much more, then what is left?
That's why I respect Galileo's arguing that the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, rather than how the heavens ago -- at least he had a well-defined criterion there, rather than waving the Bible like a fundie and then getting weaselly and evasive when challenged about it.

There is no problem with the truthiness of the Bible as long as you understand that It isn't The Truth itself, it is a finger pointing at the Truth. The one thing that I am certain of concerning God is that God isn't contained by any human work, including The Bible.
Then what's so special about the Bible? Why act like one worships it?

[Hevvin Machine]

You guys aren't trying very hard to rebut them.
You don't know what I do or don't do. Have you ever heard of Bishop Spong?

The problem is that some people simply don't listen to anybody except those who agree with them. Christians are not immune to this. There are lots of Christians out there who hold rational views about the natural world or modern morality and talk about it in public.

Again, who's a "literalist" and how did you figure that out?
It depends on the context. Plenty of people will tell you that they are. I tend to take them at their word, even though I know they aren't. If you push them hard enough you'll always find that there are verses or teachings that they don't accept. They rationalize their way around slavery and stuff quite easily. But that is capital L Literalism. There is also small l literalism. That would be the assumption that because The Bible says something I must take it literally or not be a Christian. Christians do this quite commonly and so do non-Christians.



There is no problem with the truthiness of the Bible as long as you understand that It isn't The Truth itself, it is a finger pointing at the Truth. The one thing that I am certain of concerning God is that God isn't contained by any human work, including The Bible.
Then what's so special about the Bible? Why act like one worships it?The Bible is special to me for reasons that would take longer to explain than I have right now. To keep it short I'll say The Bible is an integral part of what keeps me connected to what is greater than I am. Books alone won't do it though, which is why I disapprove of what is often refered to as "Bibliolatry". I know exactly what you're talking about and I don't have a much better understanding of it than you do.

I'm sorry that I can't help you and David B and everybody better understand the radical fringes of the Christian community. I'm not part of the radical fringes. At least I don't think so, plenty of my fellows would disagree:bang:
Hev

[His Noodly Appendage]

All possible statements are equally true, if they can be reinterpreted beyond all recognition, ad hoc.

The goddamn phone book is a vast and bottomless repository of science, philosophy, and art - all you need to do is to map each name to an attribute of the universe, and each corresponding number to the appropriate value for that attribute.

Doesn't do you a damn bit of good without a copy of those mappings to hand, though.

Same deal with the bible. A vast collection of statements, anecdotes, etc, all of which are asserted to be true "on some level", from the absolutely literal to the abstrusely allegorical. But without a mapping to declare exactly which 'level' they are asserted to be true on, and exactly what metaphors and allegories need be applied - it's nothing more than a setup for a cold reading.

[Hevvin Machine]

All possible statements are equally true, if they can be reinterpreted beyond all recognition, ad hoc.

Same deal with the bible. A vast collection of statements, anecdotes, etc, all of which are asserted to be true "on some level", from the absolutely literal to the abstrusely allegorical. But without a mapping to declare exactly which 'level' they are asserted to be true on, and exactly what metaphors and allegories need be applied - it's nothing more than a setup for a cold reading.
HNA, that's one way of looking at The Bible. A textbook full of secret magical knowledge channelled by various authors directly from God. But that isn't the way I see it at all. I see it as a collection of writings documenting the improvements made to our understanding and morals by people who try to think things through and learn from mistakes.

Take the image of God presented as an example. In Genesis God is a physical being who was not present when Eve was chatting with the serpent. By Exodus God was still a physical presence, but far less constrained by human limitations. By the New Testament God is an ineffable monotheistic presence only. Then God is portrayed as a Trinity with each person representing a different aspect of our relationship with God. In the interests of time I am oversimplifying here. What I'm trying to show you is that The Bible is documenting a process of increasingly sophisticated images of God over centuries. I do not see the Bible as "A vast collection of statements, anecdotes, etc, all of which are asserted to be true "on some level", " so much as a challenge to continue that process of improvement and increasing sophistication.
Hev

[Copernicus]

...What I'm trying to show you is that The Bible is documenting a process of increasingly sophisticated images of God over centuries. I do not see the Bible as "A vast collection of statements, anecdotes, etc, all of which are asserted to be true "on some level", " so much as a challenge to continue that process of improvement and increasing sophistication.

Or it could just be a long chain of changing stories in a failed effort to explain where we came from and what our situation is. We are no longer the center of a universe that was created for us. Gods are no longer needed to explain the origin and design of all those species of flora and fauna in our world. We can no longer explain the outcomes of human battles in terms of the power and interests of competing gods. We can no longer ground our destiny in the interest of a super-powerful being who thinks like us and dotes on the well-being of humanity as much as humans do. Generations have tried to see their own times in terms of ancient biblical prophecies. In the modern era, people are finally beginning to understand that ancient explanations were misguided in the first place, and it cannot be improved upon. They can only be replaced by more mature, sober investigations of a universe that has no interest in either our survival or our extinction.

[David B]

All possible statements are equally true, if they can be reinterpreted beyond all recognition, ad hoc.

Same deal with the bible. A vast collection of statements, anecdotes, etc, all of which are asserted to be true "on some level", from the absolutely literal to the abstrusely allegorical. But without a mapping to declare exactly which 'level' they are asserted to be true on, and exactly what metaphors and allegories need be applied - it's nothing more than a setup for a cold reading.
HNA, that's one way of looking at The Bible. A textbook full of secret magical knowledge channelled by various authors directly from God. But that isn't the way I see it at all.

Well, that's good:)

I see it as a collection of writings documenting the improvements made to our understanding and morals by people who try to think things through and learn from mistakes.

Well, OK. But why the Bible in particular, as opposed to, say the various Hindu scriptures, the various Greek schools of Philosophy,....?

Take the image of God presented as an example. In Genesis God is a physical being who was not present when Eve was chatting with the serpent. By Exodus God was still a physical presence, but far less constrained by human limitations. By the New Testament God is an ineffable monotheistic presence only. Then God is portrayed as a Trinity with each person representing a different aspect of our relationship with God. In the interests of time I am oversimplifying here.

You are oversimplifying. But, yes, I think you are broadly right in saying that the conception of God changes over time, in the Bible. But what is so special about the Bible, as opposed to other old writings?

What I'm trying to show you is that The Bible is documenting a process of increasingly sophisticated images of God over centuries. I do not see the Bible as "A vast collection of statements, anecdotes, etc, all of which are asserted to be true "on some level", " so much as a challenge to continue that process of improvement and increasing sophistication.
Hev

Hmm. Well, I'd suggest that in recent centuries advances in natural science have rather taken over from theology, no matter how sophisticated, in improving and increasing the sophistication of the study of man, of the universe, and of the relationship between them.

Paley's designer God, for instance, is redundant.

David

[Febble]

Well, it seems to me that the bible is a book about righteousness. It's not a very good book about righteousness, because ideas have developed since it was written, but it's a good history of ideas about righteousness, and it's been a significant influence on our present-day ideas about righteousness.

It just happens to cast righteousness in terms of a being that desires it.

[His Noodly Appendage]

What do you think was the intent of those that wrote/collected the various documents therein?

[David B]

What do you think was the intent of those that wrote/collected the various documents therein?

I'd have thought that different people would have had differing intents, and, further, that many of the individuals would have had mixed motives.

Among them, perhaps-

Uniting a tribe or group of tribes against potential aggressors and/or against people who lived in places that they wanted to take over by conquest.

Separating their people from others - filthy pork eaters - in a way that seemed to justify treating other groups as less than human, and hence people to be killed, enslaved or taken for sexual gratification. And justifying taking their land and goods.

Establishing a position of prestige and power within the group, with the consequent opportunities to gain high status/high wealth mates.

Giving people laws to live at relative peace and health within the group.

An emotional attachment to a particular theological position.

Not meant to be an exhaustive list.

David

[Febble]

What do you think was the intent of those that wrote/collected the various documents therein?

Well, lots of different intentions. But there are a few themes.

[Joykins]

All possible statements are equally true, if they can be reinterpreted beyond all recognition, ad hoc.

The goddamn phone book is a vast and bottomless repository of science, philosophy, and art - all you need to do is to map each name to an attribute of the universe, and each corresponding number to the appropriate value for that attribute.


After reading this post I need to re-read _A Canticle for Liebowitz_ again.

[Joykins]

What do you think was the intent of those that wrote/collected the various documents therein?

I'd have thought that different people would have had differing intents, and, further, that many of the individuals would have had mixed motives.

Among them, perhaps-

Uniting a tribe or group of tribes against potential aggressors and/or against people who lived in places that they wanted to take over by conquest.

Separating their people from others - filthy pork eaters - in a way that seemed to justify treating other groups as less than human, and hence people to be killed, enslaved or taken for sexual gratification. And justifying taking their land and goods.

Establishing a position of prestige and power within the group, with the consequent opportunities to gain high status/high wealth mates.

Giving people laws to live at relative peace and health within the group.

An emotional attachment to a particular theological position.

Not meant to be an exhaustive list.

David

Borg identifies strains of conventional wisdom and subversive wisdom. It's the subversive wisdom that appeals to me more, I think.

Discuss.

[lpetrich]

All possible statements are equally true, if they can be reinterpreted beyond all recognition, ad hoc.

The goddamn phone book is a vast and bottomless repository of science, philosophy, and art - all you need to do is to map each name to an attribute of the universe, and each corresponding number to the appropriate value for that attribute.
Sam Harris in his End of Faith demonstrates in The End of Faith how one can come up with allegorical interpretations of just about anything if one has enough imagination. He selected a cookbook at random, and in it, a recipe at random, and he came up with an interpretation about how it was a metaphor for spiritual enlightenment.

[MrFungus420]

Hevvin Machine, I have a question for you, one that I have never seen a non-literalist Christian answer:

How does one determine which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are not?

[Hevvin Machine]

So many thought provoking responses. I won't manage to produce a deep and insightful answer to all of them right away, but I'll do my best. I'll start with this easy one:

Hevvin Machine, I have a question for you, one that I have never seen a non-literalist Christian answer:

How does one determine which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are not?
Simple. You don't.
You ask yourself the question "How does this apply to me and my life and world?"
Take that part about dashing babies onto rocks. That's horrible. But I'm fairly sure that it did literally happen. I have around three thousand years more experience to draw on to shape my moral code. So while I object to the slaughter of babies I do not doubt that the ancient Israelites did it and thought it was the right thing to do.
Or did they? Maybe the reason somebody claimed that God Himself ordered this was because a sizable number of ancient Israelites were repulsed and getting difficult about it. Who knows what the politics around Biblical authors was. Not me. I don't know which parts are literally true and which aren't.

Then there is the "Do unto the least as you would do unto Me." This is still a radical notion even today. You have to be careful about getting too literal with it. Whether Jesus is a rotting corpse or God Himself, the point is not to treat your fellow humans as god or dirt. The point is to treat everybody, including people you have no obvious reason to bother with, as an important being with worth and dignity. That isn't the most literal possible interpretation. So I don't ask, "Is this literally true?". I ask "How does this apply to me and my life and world?"
The answer I get works.
Hev

[MrFungus420]

Did God literally create the heaven and the Earth?

[Lisa0315]

I solve the dilemma of cherry picking by saying, "I don't know". In other words, it is okay with me if Genesis is literal, but I don't think that it is. It makes better sense that it is a parable. As for the rest, again, I stay open to the idea that every bit of it may be literal, but on the other hand, every bit of it may be a parable.

I do believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of man and that he rose again on the third day. I do believe that there are two commandments and all the rest hinges on them: Love the Lord Thy God with all Thine Heart and Love each other. I believe in the Great Commission in which we are supposed to tell everyone we know that loving God and loving each other is the good news.

I don't think I believe in the Christian religion anymore, at least, the religion that I have encountered personally.

If this makes me a liberal Christian, so be it. I never even heard of labels such as Conservative and Liberal until I went to Christian Forums.

Lisa

[Joykins]

Hevvin Machine, I have a question for you, one that I have never seen a non-literalist Christian answer:

How does one determine which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are not?

Non-literalist Christians aren't particularly interested in the answer to that. What do we get out of that, after all?

[Copernicus]

Hevvin Machine, I have a question for you, one that I have never seen a non-literalist Christian answer:

How does one determine which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are not?

Actually, I think that the question applies to so-called literalists, as well. Nobody can possibly take everything in the Bible as literally true. Literalists tend to disagree with non-literalists on which cherries to pick. And then there are the endless arguments over whether the English translations are correct and just how to interpret nuances of English usage. Was this or that word meant to refer to a "virgin" or just a "young woman"? Was this story meant to represent a historical event or a parable? What tends to tie all those together who profess to interpret the Bible is that they really lack sufficient background and evidence to answer most of the questions.

The Bible itself is not a single document. It is a somewhat arbitrary collection of Semitic folklore (with recognizable pieces found scattered about in competing Semitic pagan traditions and even in historically earlier Sumerian literature) and historical records from the brief period of Jewish empire that existed under Solomon, David, etc. For those who would treat it as a religious document, it is little more than a textual Rorschach test. Various religious communities see in it a reflection of their own thoughts and values.

[DMB]

The point is to treat everybody, including people you have no obvious reason to bother with, as an important being with worth and dignity.

= Humanism. :D

[Hevvin Machine]

Did God literally create the heaven and the Earth?
Yes, of course, without a shadow of a doubt.
We can argue about whether God is a sentient being, a "sky daddy" as you atheists like to characterize God as. But yes, there is no doubt in my mind that the natural world is literally the creation of God, whatever the reality of God turns out to be.
Hev

[David B]

Did God literally create the heaven and the Earth?
Yes, of course, without a shadow of a doubt.
We can argue about whether God is a sentient being, a "sky daddy" as you atheists like to characterize God as. But yes, there is no doubt in my mind that the natural world is literally the creation of God, whatever the reality of God turns out to be.
Hev

So are you defining 'whateveritwas that started the universe' as God, even if that should turn out to be some quantum fluctuation or something?

David

[Hevvin Machine]

Did God literally create the heaven and the Earth?
Yes, of course, without a shadow of a doubt.
We can argue about whether God is a sentient being, a "sky daddy" as you atheists like to characterize God as. But yes, there is no doubt in my mind that the natural world is literally the creation of God, whatever the reality of God turns out to be.
Hev

So are you defining 'whateveritwas that started the universe' as God, even if that should turn out to be some quantum fluctuation or something?

David
Yes, although I don't know what a quantum fluctuation is. God is the Creator of the Universe. If that is a quantum fluctution, then yes. With the many qualifications that are necessary when talking to people who are serious literalists, like yourself, the answer is yes.
Hev

[David B]

Yes, of course, without a shadow of a doubt.
We can argue about whether God is a sentient being, a "sky daddy" as you atheists like to characterize God as. But yes, there is no doubt in my mind that the natural world is literally the creation of God, whatever the reality of God turns out to be.
Hev

So are you defining 'whateveritwas that started the universe' as God, even if that should turn out to be some quantum fluctuation or something?

David
Yes, although I don't know what a quantum fluctuation is. God is the Creator of the Universe. If that is a quantum fluctution, then yes. With the many qualifications that are necessary when talking to people who are serious literalists, like yourself, the answer is yes.
Hev

Please describe what qualifications are necessary when talking to me, and why you think I am a serious literalist.

What you mean by the term 'serious literalist' might also be helpful.

David

[Copernicus]

So are you defining 'whateveritwas that started the universe' as God, even if that should turn out to be some quantum fluctuation or something?

Yes, although I don't know what a quantum fluctuation is. God is the Creator of the Universe. If that is a quantum fluctution, then yes. With the many qualifications that are necessary when talking to people who are serious literalists, like yourself, the answer is yes.
Hev

Hev, A quantum fluctuation is not an intelligent being. It is a chance event. So, if you agree that God could be a quantum fluctuation, then what is the point of prayer, the Bible, Christ's sacrifice, and all the rest? Your answer seems a bit to glib to be taken seriously.

[MrFungus420]

Did God literally create the heaven and the Earth?
Yes, of course, without a shadow of a doubt.

Ok, so we now know one part of the Bible that you take literally.

Did God literally create Adam and Eve?

[MrFungus420]

Yes, of course, without a shadow of a doubt.
We can argue about whether God is a sentient being, a "sky daddy" as you atheists like to characterize God as. But yes, there is no doubt in my mind that the natural world is literally the creation of God, whatever the reality of God turns out to be.
Hev

So are you defining 'whateveritwas that started the universe' as God, even if that should turn out to be some quantum fluctuation or something?

David
Yes, although I don't know what a quantum fluctuation is. God is the Creator of the Universe. If that is a quantum fluctution, then yes. With the many qualifications that are necessary when talking to people who are serious literalists, like yourself, the answer is yes.
Hev

Really?

You think that God can be nothing more than a random event?

[Ray Moscow]

Really?

You think that God can be nothing more than a random event?


In that case, I guess I'm a theist after all, at least on a quantum level. :)

[DMB]

I was just reading in New Scientist how a lot of quantum weirdness can be explained by underlying fractal mathematics. So perhaps God is a fractal.

[HinduWoman]

QO: were the various writers of the Bible literalists themselves? Because if theyw ere should not the book be read in the spirit it was intended?

[Joykins]

QO: were the various writers of the Bible literalists themselves? Because if theyw ere should not the book be read in the spirit it was intended?

My argument is that the compilers were not: conflicting stories were tied together. See Genesis 1 and 2.

[Norrin Radd]

Interjection: We agree that inerrancy, literal interpretation, and universal applicability are, or at least can be, all separate issues, right?