frostymama

I'm currently in a discussion with some literalists and one ex-literalist who has at least abandonned YEC. These people know the Bible forwards and backwards (luckily I know it pretty well too)... and keep saying, "but the Bible says" to justify their arguments.

Since my mental abilities are not exactly their best right now (you could probably pour my brain out of my ear at the moment. I fear it has turned into pea soup.) it just dawned on me that I shouldn't be letting them argue for literalism merely by quoting the Bible at me.

What major things in the Bible are generally accepted by scolars as being false or mythical? I'm looking for widely accepted views... not merely more liberal interpretations that will support my position.

So far all I have been able to think of this morning other than the Creation myth in my half-braindead state is:

1. No global flood.
2. The Exodus story.
3. The Gospels were not written by Jesus' disciples and are not first hand accounts.

I know that there has to be some better ones out there... I just don't know where I should start. I will be having another discussion (can't avoid it) with them in about a week so I need to read up a bit more on this stuff. I feel like my head is stuck in a bucket full of mud right now and I couldn't come up with a logical argument on the spur of the moment to save my life. Can one of the regulars here who knows this stuff toss me a few crumbs so I don't look like a complete idiot? Just tell me what I need to be picking apart and I will focus all of my reading and studying in those areas.

Bede

Fostymama,

Note that the bible does not say the Gospels were written by disciples and only GJohn makes any claim to being first hand so that doesn't really count as an example of the Bible getting something wrong.

Also, while the numbers of people in the Exodus are clearly fantastic, it is very hard to prove the negative "there is no historical truth behind it". Instead we have to say "the bible is the only evidence we have for this" which won't exactly be a killer point for a fundie. It is a fallacy to claim that when the bible disagreed with another ancient source the bible must be wrong - all sources have mistakes, biases etc.

Against a die hard literalist you are best off concentrating on the contradictions between 1 2 Chronicle and 1 2 Kings.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

The Admiral

Bede

<<<<Note that the bible does not say the Gospels were written by disciples and only John makes any claim to being first hand so that doesn't really count as an example of the Bible getting something wrong. >>>>

Right, but, in my experience at least, most fundamentalists BELIEVE that they were.

The Admiral

Vinnie

They believe GMatthew and GJohn are first hand because they think think the apostles Matthew and John wrote GMatthew and GJohn. They also think Mark is generally first hand because they think he got all of his info from Peter an original member of the Twelve and an eyewitness. What they think of Luke I don't even remember. Maybe they feel Luke copied Mark extensively who used Peter extensively and Luke also used Q whom the eyewitness Matthew also felt was accurate enough to use so Luke is just filled with first hand material. Oh wait, most conservatives don't even know about Marcan priority and Q and the ones who do generally seem to dislike Q....

I'd focus on the differences between the synoptic Gospels and GJohn. Most notably, compare and contrast GMark with GJohn:

John has Jesus openly proclaiming himself as Lord and God. Mark has the oppistie it would seem. Even if it is argued convincingly that it is just a minor element in Mark, there is a clear "messianic secret" present. Compare that to GJohn. "Either the historical Jesus openly proclaimed his divine identiy and saving purpose (John), or he did not (Mark). To put the issue most directly, Jesus could not consistently proclaim his identity and at the same time not do so." (Borg p. 5 Jesus A New Vision).

Most critical scholars do not feel GJohn tells us much if anything about the historical Jesus. It tells us a lot about the post-easter church and their views. The living and transforming Jesus was quickly exalted with the highest titles in that culture. For that community and most Christians since, Jesus is the light of the world, he is the way, he is the truth, he is the bread of life, he is the creator of all things, true God of true God, etc.

Vinnie

MrDarwin

In general, even the most die-hard literalist Christians don't believe that Eve was tempted by a snake--rather, it was Satan, at best in the form of a snake, or possessing a snake. This despite the fact that the story in Genesis 3 clearly and explicitly identifies the tempter as a snake, no other biblical text identifies or even refers to the tempter as Satan, and even the context of the story itself strongly suggests that the creature was, quite literally, a snake. Why else would all the descendants of the snake be cursed?

Celsus

All the miracles. All the stuff that conflicts with modern science. All the stuff that conflicts with modern archaeology. That's a hell of a lot, but takes a lot of detail to explain them. Your best bet might be to focus on a particular bit of interest (Jericho? David & Solomon? Daniel? etc.) to your opponents.

Pretty much all of the OT up till 1 Kings is completely unverifiable (but also impossible to prove it didn't happen since you can't prove negatives). There is however, plenty of archaeological evidence that shows the Biblical portrayals did not happen the way they are described. For example, all the numbers/census of people in whatever part of the OT you care to check are probably untrue simply because what we know of Iron Age economics means that the lands would have been unable to support the numbers they claim. The apologist retort is usually in obfuscating on the amounts referred to by the translation, but the likely answer is simply that like all early civilisations, Judah wasn't above a bit of exaggeration to make themselves and Yahweh look better.

Joel

Vinnie

I think some negtives can be proven. But ones like this are difficult to prove (if not impossible). But why would anyone need to prove this negative anymore than they would need to prove the nonexistence of invisible elephants? If evidence warrants belief we accept it. If there is evidence that the events of Genesis 1-11 happened then we would accept that. If the text itself does not present us with stong enough evidence then we have no reason to accept its claims or reject them out of hand because that is all we have. I don't believe the Genesis creation story is any more accurate fact-wise than any of the other creation myths from antiquity. Ask your opponent to demonstrate why Genesis should be taken as factual while all the other creation myths from around the world should not be?

sian

In addition, to all the things that go against modern science-the supernatural things-I read somewhere that the story of Christ isn't completely original. There were similar, older, stories of a god-man savior (for instance Osiris) floating around already.

Celsus

Yeah, but Origen told me it was just diabloical mimicry...

David Bowden

Hi frostymama,

Good luck! I've debated hardcore literalists now and then, ever since I was still a believer, and nowadays I don't often spend time on specific errors in scripture - there are too many canned answers for those and it takes me a lot time to debunk them, after which we're exhausted or have forgotten what we were talking about. (I admit that this might only be my problem, and not a problem with the strategy of pointing out Bible errors and absurdities.)

Instead, I try to focus on the process whereby the books of the Bible were originally selected for the canon (most literalists know next to nothing about early church history and its theological and political battles after the events of the Book of Acts). If they're at all enlightened in their understanding of human nature, they soon begin to appreciate the difficulties involved in the literalist position, and at least show more tolerance towards other sorts of Christians.

I also point out the disparities between vastly different theological interpretations supposedly based on literal interpretations of scripture (Calvinism, Arminianism, Oneness pentecostalism, etc, all have literalist adherents).

When they sputter in reply about how their denomination obviously has the right doctrines and the others are in error, I show them clear Biblical language that supports the other side.

When they start to tap-dance around my example, interpreting it in a non-literal fashion so as to harmonize it with other scripture, I point out that they've just undermined Bible literalism in favor of their preferred theology. (For example, eternal security literalists tend to choke on 2 Peter 2:20-22's clear identification of true believers who lose their salvation.)

For many of them, it's the first time they've had this pointed out to them, and the discussion ends there.

If they try to rebut my argument by saying that the entire Bible has to be interpreted as a whole, with one book's specific teachings "adjusted" by another's so as to create a harmonious interpretation, I answer that the whole 66-book Bible was not available to the original readers of the separate books/letters now in the Bible -- so it's clear that true believers in times past had the sanction of Peter or Paul or whomever to believe substantially differently than my debate opponent believes.

Or, if they claim that the Holy Spirit always provides the sanctified reader with sureness in their hearts that they have the right and true interpretation (which of course they, and not the other Christians, have), I answer that:

A.) Sanctified literalist believers, who sincerely yearn only for the truth as God means for them to understand it, undoubtedly exist on both sides of the doctrinal divide, and

B.) It is implicitly alleged by literalists that the Holy Spirit made it so that the inconsistent wording appeared in scripture in the first place, leading to the longstanding divisions between churches whose teachings are based on literal interpretation. If that is true, then it implies that the Holy Spirit himself sowed the seeds of current dissention. This obviously conflicts with orthodox Christian teaching about the work of the Spirit.

They cannot coherently deny these points, so I press on.

I conclude that the various denominations cannot reconcile the clear language in different parts because the Bible just is not characterized by a consistent theology in its own unfiltered wording. In other words, literalism just isn't true, no matter how convenient it might be for Christianity. (Which in itself can become the basis for showing how Christianity fails to impress a reasonable doubter - wouldn't a book inspired by an omniscient being reflect that omniscience through perfect internal consistency, at the very least?)

The Bible's authors "saw the light" from different angles, so to speak, and wrote according to their understanding, rather than transcribing perfectly developed ideas as the Holy Spirit whispered things into their ear. So even if we grant that Christianity is true, we must accept that its scripture is only "God-breathed" in a non-literal sense, and that any absolute claim to the contrary is in fact a serious misinterpretation of scripture.

This at least usually gets them to admit that the Bible is humanly and imperfectly rendered, rather than literally, word-for-word, inspired of God. Or makes them lock up and keep sputtering the same things they've said before, making my presence unnecessary so I leave them with a polite "But I've answered that already, and you're not taking my answer into account."

If they respond favorably to my appeal to accept the human authorship of scripture and the subjective nature of religious experience in general, then I am gentle with them because I think they realize that they have to look to the whole world for understanding of things, and not just their holy book. This mindset is the essence of secularism, and whether they realize it or not, they've effectively deconverted from the worst sort of religious zealotry, and any further reflection on their part will only lead them away out of faith altogether, especially if they continue to associate with me or another thoughtful skeptic. (Yeah, I'm a starry-eyed optimist, but I've seen people change for the better over time.)

That's far enough for me to go in one discussion. I don't do well at taking someone all the way through a deconversion in one sitting. At least they won't be swinging the Bible at me and howling like a banshee ever again, and the world is a better place for it.

If all else fails and I'm not expecting to encounter the person again in a close social setting, I bring up the fact that Islam's scriptures are more internally consistent than Christianity's (not to mention, a lot closer in theme, theology and tone to the Old Testament), making Islam's argument for divine inspiration far stronger than Christianity's. If literalism is the way to go, then the most logical thing is to convert to Islam.

That's not any way to win friends among literalists, who typically abhor Islam without knowing much at all about it. But it's a heckuva trump card to point out that by their own standards of evaluation, Islam beats Christianity as far as scriptural integrity goes.

Even among conservative Christian thinkers who aren't literalists, there's a cutoff at Genesis chapter 11 - everything before and inclusive of that chapter is considered mythical (or: etiological - a story explaining why things are as they are from a theological standpoint), and everything after it is considered true or close enough to not be embarrassingly contrary to current historical and scientific knowledge.

However, a lot of Bible textbooks written for conservative Christian schools carefully skirt this issue in an effort not to offend literalist students, who are easily provoked to object in class and are frequently loud and tenacious in the fight for their simplistic interpretation.

I find that literalists have something like an emotional dependency on this doctrine, which, if disposed of, creates a yawning chasm of uncertainty for the former literalist until he or she can find another "sure thing" to cling to for security, be it evangelical denominationalism or some cult (or even a naive sort of atheism). They don't want to be held personally responsible for the reliability of their own beliefs. They want it handed down from a trustworthy source. Literalism gives them what they want, at least so long as they aren't forced to reconsider it.

When I attended a Christian college as a religion major, my Bible class prof had the unenviable job of explaining why scholars largely dismiss Gen 1-11 to a class comprised mainly of young (and soon-to-be-disillusioned) literalists who'd got their understanding from simplistic Sunday School teachers and from preachers whose education amounted to faithful readings from Thompson's Chain-Reference Bible and Jack Chick-flavored Bible commentaries. I learned a great deal about the subtle variations on circular reasoning available from listening to literalists argue with my long-suffering prof. It is no easy thing to remain on friendly terms and also critique a fundamental bit of understanding in another person who believes they have the authority of God to deal brashly with you.

Again, I can only wish you luck, frostymama; they'll fight your good reasoning like cornered animals with everything to lose, and you'll probably come out with your brain hurting.

Don Morgan's introductory article on "The Bible and Bible Problems" located here is definitely worth reading through if you have some time over the next week. You might also invite them to peruse the II library and forums, if they're online and not afraid of our "demons" possessing their home computer.

-David

PS - Celsus, that last little post was hilarious!