Have you read the Bible?

[Brainache]

Certainly... but one can hardly refer to drug induced delusions as "misinterpreted metaphors".

What are they metaphors for and how can one rightly interpret delusions and decipher the metaphors of a psychedelic stupor? Other than as a psychiatrist treating a patient that is.

Again, who knows? Maybe it's just revenge porn for oppressed people from a time when the early Christians were being persecuted.

The DSS contain similar things:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/guerradioses/guerradioses02a.htm

...Then the]re shall be a time of salvation for the People of God, and a time of dominion for all the men of His forces, and eternal annihilation for all the forces of Belial. There shall be g[reat] panic [among]
(6) the sons of Japheth, Assyria shall fall with no one to come to his aid, and the supremacy of the Kittim shall cease that wickedness be overcome without a remnant. There shall be no survivors of
(7) [all the Sons of] Darkness.
(8) Then [the Sons of Rig]hteousness shall shine to all ends of the world continuing to shine forth until end of the appointed seasons of darkness. Then at the time appointed by God, His great excellence shall shine for all the times of
(9) e[ternity;] for peace and blessing, glory and joy, and long life for all Sons of Light. On the day when the Kittim fall there shall be a battle and horrible carnage before the God of
(10) Israel, for it is a day appointed by Him from ancient times as a battle of annihilation for the Sons of Darkness. On that day the congregation of the gods and the congregation of men shall engage one another, resulting in great carnage.
(11) The Sons of Light and the forces of Darkness shall fight together to show the strength of God with the roar of a great multitude and the shout of gods and men; a day of disaster. It is a time
(12) of distress fo[r al]l the people who are redeemed by God. In all their afflictions none exists that is like it, hastening to its completion as an eternal redemption. On the day of their battle against the Kittim,
(13) they shall g[o forth for] carnage in battle. In three lots the Sons of Light shall stand firm so as to strike a blow at wickedness, and in three the army of Belial shall strengthen themselves so as to force the retreat of the forces
(14) [of Light. And when the] banners of the infantry cause their hearts to melt, then the strength of God will strengthen the he[arts of the Sons of Light.] In the seventh lot : the great hand of God shall overcome
(15) [Belial and al]l the angels of his dominion, and all the men of [his forces shall be destroyed forever].
...

Sometimes people just love a good bit of heavenly vengeance fantasy...

 

[Leumas]

Again, who knows? Maybe it's just revenge porn for oppressed people from a time when the early Christians were being persecuted.

The DSS contain similar things:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/guerradioses/guerradioses02a.htm

Sometimes people just love a good bit of heavenly vengeance fantasy...

Outsiders cannot then call it misinterpreted metaphors, nor can liberal interpretations be considered as equally or more rightly valid.... the liberal interpretations are a corruption upon the original intent ... wishful thinking compounded upon wishful thinking if you will.

Who is more irrational… one who reads Harry Potter and concludes that Harry was a wizard who did not know the extent of his powers … or one that believe just as equally that Harry was a wizard but that the story is just a metaphor for ----insert some cognitive dissonance alleviation casuistry ----?

Who is more irrational, one who believes Jesus is a god and believes the Bible as it is written …. or one who believes in Jesus as a god but believes the Bible is just human fabricated metaphors to be deciphered every which way one wishes and all interpretations are just as valid as any?

 

[Brainache]

Outsiders cannot then call it misinterpreted metaphors, nor can liberal interpretations be considered as more correct.... the liberal interpretations are a corruption upon the original intent ... wishful thinking compounded upon wishful thinking if you will.

Who is more irrational… one who reads Harry Porter and concludes that Harry was a wizard who did not know the extent of his powers … or one that believe just as equally that Harry was a wizard but that the story is just a metaphor for ----insert some cognitive dissonance alleviation casuistry ----.

Who is more irrational, one who believes Jesus is a god and believes the Bible as it is written …. or one who believes in Jesus as a god but believes the Bible is just human fabricated metaphors to be deciphered every which way one wishes and all interpretations are just as valid as any?

I wouldn't know.

What about people who don't think Jesus was a god, but read the bible as a collection of ancient writings that represent certain cultural/historical traditions from various times and places?

Some people are just interested in how ancient people saw the world and the evolution of the history of ideas.

 

[Leumas]

I wouldn't know.

What about people who don't think Jesus was a god, but read the bible as a collection of ancient writings that represent certain cultural/historical traditions from various times and places?

Some people are just interested in how ancient people saw the world and the evolution of the history of ideas.

But these people are not the ones being discussed here.

Moreover, the Bible is not just any literary work. People have not fought wars for more than 2500 years over the Histories of Herodotus nor have 6 Million people been burnt alive only 70 years ago because they were deemed to be believers (regardless of their actual belief) in the original version of Aesop’s Fables rather than the revised and extended edition.

More pressingly, there aren’t currently over 5 Billion people who believe that the One Thousand and One Nights is the word of God with varying degrees of credulity and cognitive dissonance.

There is no one in the USA actively trying to dominate the seven mountains of power and society to enforce The Lord of the Rings as the law of the land.

There are not currently millions of buildings around the world dedicated to the dissemination of the Iliad as the only path to eternal salvation of the soul and any other would lead to eternal torment.

No one is currently impeding science and denying equal rights to gays and the right to control their own future to women and causing global unrest in the name of the Enuma Elish.

The discussion here is more akin to a literary analyst categorizing people as scary fundamentalists because they believe that Sherlock Holmes was a real person who was addicted to heroin as written in Dr. Watson’s chronicles, while on the other hand labeling as more enlightened fans those who also believe that Sherlock Holmes was a real character but that his heroin addiction was only a metaphor because it would be beneath his intellect to stoop to such a vice.

I am going to take the safe bet that you do not believe Sherlock Holmes was a real character. Would you however take the side of the metaphor faction even to the extent of calling anyone who points out the irrationality of both factions, a bigoted fundamentalist equal in irrationality to the ones who advocate the literal interpretation of the tales?

Are there people who study the works of Charles Dickens who do not advocate a literal didactic reading of his works and consider other analysts who supposedly do that as totalitarian fundamentalists who think in terms of black-and-white?

Do literary analysts of the works of Tolstoy or Shakespeare tell other analysts that their methods of analysis will cause the demise of the human race?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Again, who knows? Maybe it's just revenge porn for oppressed people from a time when the early Christians were being persecuted.

The DSS contain similar things:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sitchin/guerradioses/guerradioses02a.htm

Sometimes people just love a good bit of heavenly vengeance fantasy...

That's exactly what I was getting at. Look at the approximate date it was written, and then consider what the Romans did to Jerusalem just a few years earlier. For anyone to focus on the literal details, be they fundamentalist Christians or otherwise, is to miss the point.

 

[Leumas]

My favorite book is probably Ecclesiastes. It has the most positive passages, according to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

I always preferred this version of verses 3:1-8.

​

But I really do not like this typical Biblical benightedness and advocacy of fatalism and thwarting of enquiry.

11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.​

I also dislike its conclusion, although I can appreciate how the fear mongering it entails might be useful “wisdom” for keeping people towing the line.

12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
12:14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.​

I would hardly call the following verses positive although they surely are quite wise.

9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun.
2:21 For there is a man whose labour is with wisdom, and with knowledge, and with skill; yet to a man that hath not laboured therein shall he leave it for his portion. This also is vanity and a great evil.
1:2 Vanity of vanities, saith Koheleth; vanity of vanities, all is vanity.
1:14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.
1:15 That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.
1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
10:1 Dead flies make the ointment of the perfumer fetid and putrid; so doth a little folly outweigh wisdom and honour.
​

But I think Ecclesiastes might yet prove to be the wisest of compositions indeed, if only someone could decipher the following gobbledygook …. any suggestions?

11:1 Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.
11:2 Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.
11:3 If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be.
11:4 He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap.
11:6 In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand: for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good.​

 

[Darwin123]

Well, have you?

By "read" let's assume that I mean that you have read the majority of it. I've read all of it, but I admit to skimming all of the boring begats. I consider this to be having read the Bible.

Select one of the "I am/have been a Christian" options if at any time in your life, including currently, you have been an active Christian churchgoer for any substantial period of time. Otherwise, select "I am not/have never been a Christian".

If you're not sure, please ask what I mean before voting.

You were not specific enough in your questions.

I was never raised as a Christian. I have not read any of the New Testament. I have read English translations
of most of the Old Testament. Thus I voted that I read the Bible. However, I don't know whether this vote
really characterizes my situation completely. Therefore, I am going to add some qualifying data.


I read an English translation of the Torah (i.e., five books of Moses) when I
was about 14 years old. I was not required to read it, but convinced myself that it was important to know God and the history of my people. I read parts of the Bible for Hebrew school, at the synagogue and on my own. However, I forced myself to scan every page of the English translated Torah. I can't say that I understood all of it, but I did make the effort.

I was never raised as a Christian. I was raised as Jew in a conservative Ashkenazi tradition. I was a regular synagogue goer. I am not religious now. I am currently either an atheist or a atheist leaning agnostic right now.

Since becoming nonreligious, I have read other parts of the Bible with great interest. My current interpretation of the Bible is pretty close to that of a secular archaeologist or secular anthropologist. I am an amateur paleontologist. So my current interpretation of the Bible is very
different from that of a religious Jew.

Just as Christian tradition emphasizes the New Testament, Jewish tradition emphasizes the Talmud. Therefore, I should state
my relationship to the Talmud. I have not read most of the Talmud. I read parts of it. I have been lectured to on various parts of
the Talmud. However, my knowledge of the Talmud is largely second or third hand.

I submit that there may be people raised Christian in a similar situation. They did not read the complete Bible. There may be Christians who read the Five books of Moses and not the New Testament. There may be some Christians who read the New Testament but not the Old Testament. They may vote 'I read the Bible' when they mean they read only part of the Bible.

So maybe you should be careful as to how you interpret the data. My feeling is that most of the New Testament and most of the Talmud is spin on the Old Testament. Most of the ethnicity and religious differences are tied to the adjunct Bibles: New Testament and Talmud. So it could be very important what parts of the Bible the individual decides to read carefully. A flat 'read the Bible' vote doesn't really tell you anything.

I am currently being amused by the difference between Book of Maccabees (Catholic) and the Talmudic story of Hanukah (Jewish). Presumably the same historical events are being examined. However, there is a completely different interpretation of the events given in each scripture. I find myself leaning toward Book of Maccabees as a quasi-historical text. The Talmud version of this conflict appears more like a mystical fantasy. So despite my upbringing as a Jew, I am highly biased toward the Christian version.

 

[DGM]

I'm agnostic and have read the bible. None of the options in the poll apply to me.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

11:1 Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.
11:2 Give a portion to seven, and also to eight; for thou knowest not what evil shall be upon the earth.
11:3 If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be.
11:4 He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap.
11:6 In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening withhold not thine hand: for thou knowest not whether shall prosper, either this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good.​

Are you sure that's not from "Life Of Brian"?

 

[Leumas]

Are you sure that's not from "Life Of Brian"?

That would definitely qualify it for sublime wisdom.

However it might be the work of the devil who, jealous of the paradigmatic wisdom and wit of Monty Python, decided to go back in time to preemptively plagiarize them and claim the credit.

 

[arthwollipot]

If you don't think that any of the options apply to you, then by all means don't vote.

 

[RickM]

I am currently being amused by the difference between Book of Maccabees (Catholic) and the Talmudic story of Hanukah (Jewish). Presumably the same historical events are being examined. However, there is a completely different interpretation of the events given in each scripture. I find myself leaning toward Book of Maccabees as a quasi-historical text. The Talmud version of this conflict appears more like a mystical fantasy. So despite my upbringing as a Jew, I am highly biased toward the Christian version.

Keep in mind, the 4 books of Maccabees (first two recognized by Catholicism and all 4 recognized by Eastern Orthodoxy) also have their basis in Jewish scripture. They are found in the Septuagint (LXX), which is a translation of the Hebrew Bible (at that time) into Greek by a council of 70 Jewish scholars back around the 3rd century BCE. This work was supposedly commissioned by the Greek King of Egypt, Ptolemy II, for the benefit of Koine Greek speaking Jews and the Library of Alexandria.

Over the next millennium, the authoritative books of Jewish scripture were widely debated and evolved into the current incarnation of the Hebrew Bible based primarily on the Masoretic texts of the 7th through 10th centuries CE. The Masoretes were Jewish Scholars settled in Jerusalem, Tiberias (Israel), and Babylonia (Iraq). If one compares the same scriptures translated into English from the various sources (Greek/Septuagint, Hebrew/Masoretic Texts, & Latin Vulgate) many variations can be found, presenting additional challenges for a present-day, English-speaking believer of an Abrahamic faith. Canonical versus non-canonical; inspired versus uninspired; the choices can be dizzying. The term “metaphorical” was debated a few posts earlier for its association to the Bible; maybe a better word would be “allegorical” as it pertains thereto. In other words, having hidden spiritual significance for a believer rather than the literal text, given all of the convolution and metamorphosis above.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

BTW I was doing some reading up on creationism, specifically YEC, and found out that Biblical literalism and strict Biblical inerrancy is actually a very recent phenomenon:

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/bible-inerrant.php

And for all its faults, the Vatican doesn't even hold this stance either, as has been mentioned in other discussions:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

So, suck it creationists.

 

[Leumas]

What about people who don't think Jesus was a god, but read the bible as a collection of ancient writings that represent certain cultural/historical traditions from various times and places?

Some people are just interested in how ancient people saw the world and the evolution of the history of ideas.

Hey Brainache..... how likely do you think those people you refer to in the above post are to say things like the below?

So, suck it creationists.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes.
I also read it these days, usually with a particular purpose.
Of late I have been revisiting the prophetic books, as I didn't get all that deeply into them the first time around. Having just finished a book called "in the footsteps of Jesus" which is a historical treatment of that time in Roman occupied Holy Land, I've got yet another set of contextual ideas to bounce against various passages in Scripture.

It's interesting again.

 

[Leumas]

BTW I was doing some reading up on creationism, specifically YEC, and found out that Biblical literalism and strict Biblical inerrancy is actually a very recent phenomenon:

I do not know what you consider to be "very recent" but Martin Luther (ca. 1517 CE) the father of all Protestantism and its all but countless offshoots was a YEC and John Calvin the other father of the Protestant Reformation was a creationist.

From Here

From 1517 the Protestant Reformation brought a new emphasis on lay literacy. Martin Luther taught young Earth creationism, that creation took six literal days about 6000 years ago.[39] John Calvin also rejected instantaneous creation, but criticised those who, contradicting the contemporary understanding of nature, asserted that there are "waters above the heavens."[37]

Maybe you consider 600 years ago qualifies as "very recent" but I doubt any person would agree with you if you think that Church Fathers like Origin from 1800 years ago are "very recent".

Thus, Origen believed that the physical world is ‘literally’ a creation of God, but did not take the chronology or the days as ‘literal’. Similarly, Saint Basil the Great in the fourth century while literal in many ways, described creation as instantaneous and timeless, being immeasurable and indivisible

I wonder if you would categorize St. Augustine from 1600 years ago, whose writings are almost as sacred to the Catholic Church as the Bible, to have been "very recent"?

Augustine of Hippo in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis was insistent that the Book of Genesis describes the creation of physical objects, but also shows creation occurring simultaneously,

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/bible-inerrant.php

And for all its faults, the Vatican doesn't even hold this stance either, as has been mentioned in other discussions:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

With all respect for the opinions of the engineer and lawyer you have cited, I suggest that maybe it might behoove you to keep on reading.

Here are a few suggestions to begin with

• Classical rabbinic teachings
  
  The vast majority of classical Rabbis hold that God created the world close to 6,000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve from clay. This view is based on a chronology developed in a midrash, Seder Olam, which was based on a literal reading of the book of Genesis. It is considered to have been written by the Tanna Yose ben Halafta, and cover history from the creation of the universe to the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. This chronology is widely accepted among most of Orthodox Judaism today.​
• Apostles' Creed
  
  The title, Symbolum Apostolicum (Symbol or Creed of the Apostles), appears for the first time in a letter, probably written by Ambrose, from a Council in Milan to Pope Siricius in about 390: "Let them give credit to the Creed of the Apostles, which the Roman Church has always kept and preserved undefiled".
  
  1. I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.​
• Nicene Creed
  
  First Council of Nicea (325)

  We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.​

  First Council of Constantinople (381)

  We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.​
• Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1250 BCE)
  
  St. Thomas Aquinas holds a special place of honor in Roman Catholicism....
  
  Still, Thomas' influence in the Western Church is hard to overestimate. Catholics refer to him as the Angelic Doctor. In many ways, Thomas is the high water mark of what has come to be called "scholasticism" and "classical theism." In fact, if you survey the writings on the doctrine of God even by Protestant scholastic theologians after the Reformation, you'll find that many depend almost entirely on the method Thomas laid out over three centuries earlier.
  
  In his Summa Theologica, Thomas argues that God directly created every human soul and directly made the original body of Adam. He insists: "The rational soul can be made only by creation" (I:90:2). To be clear, he means that each human soul, which is the formal principle of the body, is created directly from nothing: "t cannot be produced, save immediately by God" (I.90.3).​
  
  
  [*]Sola scriptura
  
  (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.
  
  Sola scriptura is a formal principle of many Protestant Christian denominations, and one of the five solas. It was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers, who taught that authentication of Scripture is governed by the discernible excellence of the text as well as the personal witness of the Holy Spirit to the heart of each man. Some Evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of sola scriptura more strongly: Scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.​

 

[Leumas]

BTW I was doing some reading up on creationism, specifically YEC, and found out that Biblical literalism and strict Biblical inerrancy is actually a very recent phenomenon:

http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/bible-inerrant.php

And for all its faults, the Vatican doesn't even hold this stance either, as has been mentioned in other discussions:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

So, suck it creationists.

What do you mean by "this stance"?

Do you mean Creationism? Seriously.... you are saying the Catholic Church does not now and never did in the past believe that God created everything?

Creationism

Creationism is the belief that the Universe and Life originate "from specific acts of divine creation​

Creationism

1. Belief in the supernatural origin of the universe or of humans and other living things, especially as based on the literal interpretation of the account of the creation related in the Bible.
2. (Theology) the belief that God brings individual human souls into existence at conception or birth. Compare
3. (Theology) the doctrine that ascribes the origins of all things to God's acts of creation rather than to evolution.
4. the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is recounted in the Bible.
5. the doctrine that God creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

But if by "this stance" you mean Biblical literalism then I wonder what metaphorical interpretations was the Catholic Church using when it committed numerous HISTORICAL ATROCITIES in the name of Jesus and the Bible (also see here and here)..... how about RECENT ATROCITIES?

What allegory or metaphor was the Catholic Church using for Matthew 27:25 when they blamed all Jews for the killing of God?

Eastern Christianity

The Holy Friday liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Byzantine Catholics uses the expression "impious and transgressing people",[7] but the strongest expressions are in the Holy Thursday liturgy, which includes the same chant, after the eleventh Gospel reading, but also speaks of "the murderers of God, the lawless nation of the Jews", and, referring to "the assembly of the Jews", prays: "But give them, Lord, their reward, because they devised vain things against Thee."​

Western Christianity

A liturgy with a similar pattern, historically using the term "perfidious Jews," can be found in the Improperia of the Roman Catholic Church. In the Anglican Church, the first Anglican Book of Common Prayer did not contain this formula, but has emerged in later versions, such as the 1989 Anglican Prayer Book of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, as the The Solemn Adoration of Christ Crucified or The Reproaches.[10] Although not part of Christian dogma, many Christians, including members of the clergy, preached that the Jewish people were collectively guilty for Jesus's death.​

Repudiation of charge

As a part of Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Paul VI issued the declaration Nostra Aetate ("In Our Time"), which in part repudiated the traditional belief in the collective Jewish guilt for the Crucifixion.[1] Nostra Aetate stated that, even though some Jewish authorities and those who followed them called for Jesus' death, the blame for this cannot be laid at the door of all those Jews present at that time, nor can the Jews in our time be held as guilty. The document does not, however, address the historicity of Matthew 27:24–25.
​

Do you think the Catholic Church is applying Matthew 26:26-27 in an allegorical or metaphorical sense as they affirm and avow the doctrine of Transubstantiation?

When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body", what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: the "species" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that, when Jesus made that declaration, the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was changed into that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Catholic Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist when the words are spoken in persona Christi "This is my body ... this is my blood."​

I wonder how much allegory and non-literalism were the Catholic Church applying when they burned alive Giordano Bruno?

Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines (including the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and Transubstantiation). Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern.[4] The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori.​

Were the Catholic Church using Exodus 22:18 allegorically or metaphorically when they did this?

 

[Craig B]

Yes, Leumas, you're right. What may be recent is the proclamation of "inerrancy" as a specific school of thought. Not because it was new, but because metaphorical and other non-literal interpretations of scriptures were gaining ground, and the old style of thinking had to be defined and codified. This had not been done prior to the Enlightenment, not because literalism was virtually unknown then ... but because it was virtually universal and almost unchallenged.

 

[Craig B]

Martin Luther (ca. 1517 CE) the father of all Protestantism and its all but countless offshoots was a YEC

Indeed he was. This is from the Introduction to his Commentary on Genesis.

we conclude that Moses spoke literally and plainly and neither allegorically nor figuratively; that is, he means that the world with all creatures was created in six days as he himself expresses it.

 

[Leumas]

Yes, Leumas, you're right. What may be recent is the proclamation of "inerrancy" as a specific school of thought. Not because it was new, but because metaphorical and other non-literal interpretations of scriptures were gaining ground, and the old style of thinking had to be defined and codified. This had not been done prior to the Enlightenment, not because literalism was virtually unknown then ... but because it was virtually universal and almost unchallenged.

Indubitably my dear Craig .... well said!!

.... metaphorical and other non-literal interpretations of scriptures were gaining ground....

The obvious reason for that is the widespread chronic and acute Cognitive Dissonance caused by the exposure of Biblical claptrap and hogwash by one scientific discovery after another.

I always ask this question... you see a waitress gobbing in two bowls of soup and then goes to a table and gives them to two guys.... you go over to the table and inform them of the fact.....Who is less irrational and pathetic?

The one who believes that you are most likely right... looks at the bowl.... scoops out a few pieces of what he decides are the gob from among many pieces that are gob-like and then carries on to eat the rest of the bowl?​

Or

The one who does not believe a mere stranger because he knows the waitress well and is sure she would never gob in his soup and dismisses you for a liar and just carries on eating the entire bowl?​