I understand that from the perspective of those who take the Bible literally, the global flood took place about 2400 B.C. and that the world began about 4000 B.C., giving 1600 years of human population growth. So, what was the estimated population at the time of the flood? In other words, how many people incurred the judgment of God in the flood? Please answer according to the perspective of those who take the Bible literally and historically.

[Thomas More](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More) , whose birthday it is today (7 February), was a strong defender of Catholic eucharistic theology. In his *Answer to a poisoned book* (1533), a reply to a [Zwinglian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_Huldrych_Zwingli#Eucharist) tract probably written by [George Joye](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Joye) , he wrote: > I shall, beside all such spiritual expositions as this man useth therein by way of allegories or parables, declare you the very literal sense of those words, "My flesh is verily meat, and my blood verily drink": so that that ye may see thereby that our saviour verily spake and meant, not only such a spiritual eating as Master Masker saith he only meant, but also the very bodily eating and drinking of his very flesh and blood indeed. 1 The basic dispute [depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0) , in the words of institution, and in other passages like the one quoted ([John 6:55](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:55&version=NRSVACE)) . Zwingli and Joye thought it meant "signifies". More asserts (among other arguments) that since Jesus had a body of flesh and blood, "This is my body" admits a literal reading, unlike when Jesus elsewhere says that he "is" a vine, a door, and so on. He says that although there are also symbolic meanings, a literal one cannot be wholly dismissed, since that would mean ignoring the plain words. Moreover, although one has to go to some effort to explain how it's possible (how Christ's body can be present in the Eucharist, at many places and times, appear as bread, etc.), it's more acceptable to believe in miracles than to remove all literal meaning from "is". At first glance this seems to be the same kind of argument made by Biblical literalists today about many other passages. Does More's reasoning - that it is necessary to find *some* plain reading if at all possible - count as a "literal" argument, according to a modern understanding about what that means? What rules or safeguards are present in the modern approach, whereby self-described literalists today are generally not led to consider transubstantiation a viable option in this case, when supernatural explanations are accepted in other cases? 1. [*The answer to the first part of the poysoned booke whych a nameles heretike hath named the supper of the Lord*](http://www.thomasmorestudies.org/1557Workes/Answer_poysoned_booke1.pdf) , 1.3. In *The workes of Sir Thomas More ... in the Englysh tonge* (London, 1557), p1042. Spelling and punctuation modernised by me.

According to fundamental Belief 24: (Christ’s ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary) the SDA believe that Christ began his investigative judgement in 1844.This they refer to as the end of 2300 days of Daniel's prophecy. Daniel 8:14 NASB >14 And he said to me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be [q]properly restored.” In the prophecy Daniel refers to the restoration of the sanctuary which the SDA clear identify as the heavenly sanctuary.But its not clear in Daniel's prophecy which one he was referring to.Should the text be understood from a literal or non literal sense. How can one understand this interpretation of Christ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary?

Who came up with the idea that Genesis doesn't tell us "how the world was made" but "that it was made"? It seems to deny the historicity of the Genesis 's account of the creation of the world.

Genesis 1:21-22 > So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing > with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to > their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw > that it was good > > God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and > fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." Genesis 1:24 > And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to > their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, > and the wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. For example :
A. God create a bunch of elephants, cows, doves, eagles, penguins, dolphins, dogs, ants, snakes, etc etc ... here and there across the earth - male and female. B. God create 2 elephants, 2 cows, 2 doves, 2 eagles, 2 penguins, 2 dolphins, 2 ants, 2 snakes, etc etc ... male and female for each type and they are all in one place ---> Something like when on the 6th day we go to a zoo or to an African Safari, many types of animal are there - but there are only two for each type, male and female. C. Almost like B, but the two elephants on the most North of the earth, the two doves somewhere on other part of the earth, the two penguins on the most South of the earth, **the two snakes exactly in the Eden Garden**, etc etc. In other words, the size of the "African Safari" is as big as the earth size :). So, according to the YEC - is it A or B or C ? Thank you.

This obviously varies massively between denominations and even within denominations. I am trying to assess what percentage of Christendom takes early Genesis absolutely literally (six-day creation within the last 10,000 years, Noah's global flood, Adam and Eve as the first humans, etc.) as opposed to allegorically.

If the bible opposes the practice of magic does this mean its claims of "magic" are literally real (as opposed to metaphorically)? If so, is there scientific proof of the existence of "magic"? Is there an explanation of what "magic" is in the first place?

As I read the gospels and the other NT books, both Jesus and the authors all seem to take the OT as entirely historically accurate, especially the events of Genesis and Exodus. Additionally, this assumption of the literal accuracy of the OT appears to not just be a side note, but form the core of many of their theological arguments. Is this a correct impression of Jesus and the NT authors? I found one question that seems to support this interpretation of Jesus' perspective, at least to a degree.

For those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible (or those who understand the positions of those who do), how can the Bible have this status given all the opportunities for any message delivered by God to be corrupted by human failings? In particular, humans have free will and thus fell; but a being with free will may choose to convey a different message than one they have been given, and even without such will, imperfect beings make mistakes. Did God suspend the exercise of free will and ability to err (at least without catching it later) of those who wrote the Bible and those who transcribed it?

According to Dante, in his Divine Comedy (Inferno), the fall of Satan caused a geological upheaval. The Devil fell on his head in the Southern Hemisphere, causing the lands to the south to rise to the north and to the south to form the Mountain of Purgatory. Dante also said that the fall of Satan formed Hell in the center of the Earth. The Gap Theory is a vision that tries to interconnect the great eras of the geological column of evolution with the biblical timeline, inserting the 14 billion years and the long prehistoric periods. Furthermore, Gap theorists mostly believe that the fall of Satan and his fallen angels to Earth wiped out the dinosaurs (about 65 million years ago - Cretaceous Period). Only after that period did God "recreate" the Earth in 6 literal days (about 6,000 years ago). My question is whether the Bible really teaches that Satan fell from Heaven in this catastrophic way to Earth, whether the "fall" just means that he fell from his position in Heaven, or is it both alternatives.

In a comment to another question, someone commented that the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "clearly" symbolic and not actual trees. I was surprised by that position. I think it's certainly possible that the trees are symbolic, but it's not obvious to me that God didn't use actual trees in Eden. I am curious about what different denominations say about the literalness of the trees in Eden. I see three possible options: 1. The denomination teaches that the trees were actual trees 2. The denomination teaches that the trees were symbolic of something else 3. The denomination doesn't say definitively one way or the other I would like an overview of which of the above positions is taken by different denominations across Christianity. *I think that this question is following the guidelines on overview questions as described here , but let me know if it needs to be adjusted to be on-topic.*

How do those who understand Noah's Flood to be a global flood explain what the carnivorous animals ate after disembarking, if there were only 2 of all the other species left? Eating 1 would stop those species' reproductive lines, so what happened here?

Augustine allegorically interpreted the first creation account in Genesis 1 - 2:4 but seems to have literally interpreted the second creation account in Genesis 2:5-3:24. Origen allegorically interpreted both stories. > "The sacred writer was able to separate in the time of his narrative what God did not separate in time in His creative act." (St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated and annotated by John Hammond Taylor, S.J., 2 vols. (New York: Newman Press, 1982) (pg. 36) [The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine's View of Creation](https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF3-88Young.html) Did any other church fathers reject a literal interpretation of at least one of the creation accounts in Genesis, or were these two the only ones to do it?

At my son's confirmation class last night the teacher told him that our priest told him (and I haven't confirmed this with the priest) that whenever Jesus says "Amen Amen I say to you", that this is a hint that the next words He says should be taken literally. For instance > Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. > > John 6:47-51 NAB [And several more](https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NABRE&quicksearch=amen+amen&begin=50&end=50) This was news to me and I'm gonna go hunt down all those instances, but is this a "well known sort of thing" when it comes to Biblical scholarship especially in Catholic circles? The Catholic understanding of scripture is that all scripture is first and foremost to be interpreted literally, but is the emphasis on amen amen, supposed to stand out and how does it stand out in relations to places where Jesus doesn't place this sort of emphasis, do they form the basis for a higher order of commandments?

YECs (Young Earth Creationists) often hold their views because of a 'literal' view of Genesis, and in particular the use of 'day' in the Genesis creation account. Are there aspects of Genesis that 'literalists' generally hold are symbolic, figurative, or not holding their 'usual' meaning, however? For example, do they hold there was literally a sword used to block the entrance to the east side of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24)? Similarly, do they hold the Tree of Life is literally a tree that literally can be eaten to bestow eternal life? Similarly, do they hold a serpent literally spoke to Eve? Similarly, did God literally breath into Adam's nostrils? Similarly, was there literally an evening and morning before there was a Sun? And so on. How do those who take a 'literalist' approach to Genesis, such as YECs, generally understand these sorts of elements of Genesis? Are there any elements of Genesis 1-3 that *are* generally taken to be symbolic by literalists?

In Longman and Walton's book *The Lost World of the Flood* (2018) they argue that the account of Noah's flood in the book of Genesis, although based on an historical event, employs rhetorical devices such as **hyperbole**. One example of this is the size of the ark. In the Genesis account, the size of the ark is put at 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high (estimates vary, but that is the approximate size). As the authors say (p. 39), > "Let's remember that the ark as described in the Bible, if taken as > precise measurements of an actual boat, **is larger than any wooden boat > built not just in antiquity but at any time, including today**. [...] > the earliest vessels, rarely more than ten feet in length [...] > Egyptian art [...] depicts ships that may be as long as 170 feet [...] > Even once we move into Roman times [...] the most famous large vessel > was the Isis [...] Remarkably, it was 180 feet by 45 feet by 44 feet - > less than a quarter the size of the ark. > > Moving to more recent times [...] The USS Dunderberg is often listed > at the longest at 377 feet, but 50 feet of the length is a ram, so to > compare to the ark we should list it at 327. The Wyoming [...] is > listed at 449 feet, but this includes the jib-boom; actually it is 329 > feet. These modern long wooden boats are also built with iron bolts > and steel supports, something not available to Noah." According to Longman and Walton, unlike a contemporary reader who is used to boats the size of the ark or bigger (such as cargo ships or cruise-liners - indeed, this is small compared to the largest ships nowadays - the largest cruise ship is 1,200 feet long and 210 feet wide), an ancient reader would have immediately recognized this as an unprecedentedly huge ship which would have been virtually impossible for Noah and his family to build (or perhaps even the King's navy). Hence, they argue, it is plausible to hold an ancient reader would have readily seen this as 'obvious' hyberbole, similar to a person nowadays saying "this luggage weighs 10,000 pounds" - any listener nowadays would know that latter phrase is meant as hyperbole for effect. What are the main responses to this type of argument? There are two main aspects here. First, do those who hold the flood story is to be understood literally hold this actually would be a practical achievement by Noah and his family, and if so how? Second, are there any common responses to the argument it is reasonable to hold this would have been seen by ancient listeners as hyperbole, who would never have seen boats of this size?

Biblical literalism, according to GotQuestions' article What is biblical literalism? , > "is the position of most evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists > [as well as GotQuestions]." In particular, > "Biblical literalism is the method of interpreting Scripture that > holds that, except in places where the text is obviously allegorical, > poetic, or figurative, it should be taken literally." There is a lot of weight put on the word 'obviously' here. Consider that something might obviously seem sarcastic to one person, but obviously serious to another, and to a third they don't know whether the person is being sarcastic or serious. Similarly, someone might take Genesis 1-11 as 'obviously' mythic (I'm in that camp), another as 'obviously' literal. Yet my taking Genesis 1-11 as obviously mythic means *I fit with the above definition of a Biblical literalist*! Matthew 18:8-9 is > "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it > away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have > two hands and two feet and be thrown into the eternal fire. 9 And if > your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is > better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be > thrown into the fire of hell." My question is whether self-identified Biblical literalists tend to view Jesus' expressions to gouge out one's eye or cut off one's hand - or other seemingly extreme statements - as *obviously* figurative? If so, what are the main arguments made by Biblical literalists that it is obviously figurative language?

A general social census that has been taking place in America since 1984 indicates that ~40% of American Christians favor a literal interpretation of Scripture. This literal view is defined as: > "the interpretation of Scripture as literal, with the exception of > sections of text that are clearly intended to be allegorical, poetic, > or figurative." - CompellingTruth.org And, in the "tags" function of this Stack literalism is defined as: > A hermeneutical approach in which the Bible is understood as accurate historical narrative throughout, with the exception of parts clearly stated not to be so. A study conducted at Baylor University, published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion and reported on in Forbes magazine makes the following statement: > People who look at religion tend to associate literalism with evangelicals,” says Kent. “What we found is that if we break out each of these religious groups – Evangelicals, Protestants, Catholics – we found that you have literalists in each of these categories. There's more of a relationship between literalism and close personal attachment to God than there is to denomination. I am unsure if the findings of these (or similar) studies remain true when the net is cast wider than America but the question that follows is directed towards those, of whatever denomination, who hold that, unless there is clear reason presented in the text, Scriptural passages must be taken literally. Consider the following passages: > Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. - Revelation 21:1-2 > And the one who spoke with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city and its gates and walls. The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width. And he measured the city with his rod, 12,000 stadia. Its length and width and height are equal. - Revelation 21:15-16 The website sizes.com has this definition for the length of a "stadion": > Various ancient Greek units of length, in concept the standard length of the furrow made in plowing with a team of oxen, = 600 podos, the size varying with the size of the pous. The website goes on to offer a range of lengths (based on the size of the ancient pous) from 177.4 - 199.8 meters. If we take the smallest number and extrapolate we end up with a city which is 2,128,800 meters (2128 km) in all three dimensions. This city, if literal, will cover an area of slightly over 4.5 million sq km and contain a volume of 9.6 billion cubic km. This city would be a million sq km larger than India, more than half the size of the continental United States, and half the size of the entire Middle East. If the New Jerusalem comes down centered on the location of the current Jerusalem it's borders will roughly be: 1) to the North - the southern coast of the Black Sea 2) to the south - the Egypt/Sudan border 3) to the east - the Tigris River 4) to the west - the Egypt/Libya border up through the Mediterranean sea to the Greece/Bulgaria border just west of Kavala In the third dimension, the height of the city will be 2, 128 km as well. This puts the top of the city well outside of the outer limits of the inner atmosphere (600 km) and into near space. The top of the city will reside just about at the delineation between low-earth and medium-earth orbits . Do biblical literalists really understand the dimensions of this city literally and, if they take them in a non-literal fashion, what makes them "clearly stated not to be so"?

Affable Geek's answer to What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally? mentioned the possibility of non-literalists interpreting the story of David and Goliath as a "tale that grew in the telling." This reminded me of something I read many years ago in a Bible commentary. It mentioned that several odd discrepancies exist in the details surrounding the story of David and Goliath, making it appear as if another story had been clumsily inserted into the middle of the text by some scribe. Unfortunately, the book was borrowed and I no longer have it, and I don't remember all the points that were made, but the one I remember clearly, because it was so blatant, was how David, once he volunteered to fight Goliath as Israel's champion, was introduced to King Saul as if for the first time, even though he had been serving in the King's court as a musician for quite some time prior to this. Of course a literalist must necessarily reject this idea that the story is full of later interpolations. How would one account for the apparent discrepancies in the story of David and Goliath, then?

According to Christians who accept a literal global flood, how could animals accustomed to thriving in extreme temperatures be found in a common place for preservation aboard the ark?