Talk:Biblical literalism

message: I've done my best to improve various spelling and grammar issues, but this sentence has defeated me:-
 These views however do not contend the literalistic values that parables, metaphors and allegory are not existent in the Bible [15][16] but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention. [17] 
What does 'values' mean in this context? Should 'relies' not be 'rely'? I can't figure the sentence out, so I'm not editing it as I'm reluctant to destroy any finer nuances of meaning. SheffieldSteel 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  eh? 

message: The Criticisms section needs to be significantly expanded because at this point there is far too literal information, and all of it decontextualized.  At present, it seems more a series of unrelated quotes which need further explination as to why they are adequate or inadequate critques of the subject at hand.
jackturner3 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Fill, I think you're missing the point of the article. The term Biblical Literalist is used to point the finger and make fun of those who are deemed less scientific, kinda like you just did. No one actully believes that swords will come out of Jesus' mouth, that's an allegory. So this article is to define how the term "Biblical Literalist" is used, It's not to join in with arrogant liberal scholars by creating an article bashing conservative ones. If you read the article, you'll learn that not even the staunchest of conservative inerrentists believe in literal interpretation. Therefore your whole rant agiants those scholars who according to you are "unable or unwilling to use their God-given powers of reason" is moot, cause they don't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.153.46 (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2007‎ (UTC)
Um.. by adding your opinion on "Biblical Literalists," you haven't achieved anything. The issue is that the "criticism" section adds nothing of substance, only a shopping list of points without substance. That entire section needs be turned into PARAGRAPHS, and the actual reasoning EXPLAINED!! "Why are "Biblical literalists" heretics?"
Yoda921 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a work in progress. So it takes time and effort to achieve anything.--Filll 03:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Fill, nice edits, thanks for cleaning this up a bit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.153.46 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2007‎ (UTC)
I somehow get the feeling that the Criticism section is just a list of quotes that isn't really a section. Perhaps someone could clean it up into a slightly more paragraphical version?
Jenigmat429 14:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: After rereading the source and the others, I see where the editors got these quotes from. However, we should still look for better sources on the subject. As suggested, this could all be improved by doing away with the current format of a laundry list of quotes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffungstod (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an old thread from 2007.  —PaleoNeonate – 01:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: You can't lump the miracles of Jesus in with the Genesis to suggest that taking Jesus' miracles literally is the same as taking Genesis literally. At the least, the Gospels were written by folks who knew the Apostles (who claimed to have seem the miracles) and folks who themselves would have seen the miracles. Also, when Genesis was put into writing, no one had ever tried to record history literally. The Gospels, on the other hand, come well after Herodotus et al. The Gospel writers were arguably not trying to write mythology or hagiography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101f:c07f:c547:3487:7a61:6325 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2017‎ (UTC)
:The majority opinion of Bible scholars is that the gospels are based upon oral gospel traditions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: This article paints with too broad a brush