2 ms·

So you don't even disagree with me. I didn't mean science is contradictory to believing the bible at all, that's why I singled out biblical literalism (i.e. bel

• humanrebar 9y ago
  > ... biblical literalism as being a straw man. There are some definitional problems here (1). "Biblical inerrancy" is a more accurate term, but it's used interchangeably with "biblical literalism" for reasons I'm not clear on. Nobody reads every word of the Bible literally. Portions of it are obviously poems. There perhaps wasn't really a Good Samaritan. That was a parable. But people who believe the Bible is inerrant do not think, "Hey, this part seems dumb to me. Let's just get rid of that part," which is a different reaction to reading the Genesis creation story. But there are people who think the world was created in seven days 100k years ago (or even more recently). I was trying to describe a few different approaches, one of which involves interpreting a passage of Genesis as a poem. Other two approaches take that passage more literally. All of the above fit under the umbrella of "biblical inerrancy" rather easily. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism#Background