[dragonwriter]

> Biblical literalists are generally not accused of "misinterpreting" the Christian Bible.

Yes, they are. Particularly by other Christians.

> but it's hard to accuse someone of "misinterpreting" something because they follow its literal meaning.

No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion, we see it all the time when people are accused of misinterpreting something by treating either one-off metaphors or colloquial figures of speech as if their meaning was what is suggested by the literal meanings of the individual words. Or when one of many possible literal meaning (words often have more than one nonfigurative meaning) is chosen, despite the fact that the context (possibly very broad context) suggests a different interpretation, whether a different literal interpretation or a nonliteral one.

Its no harder to accuse people of misinterpretation for pursuing a particular literal interpretation when the thing being misinterpreted is a religious text.

[dpark]

> Yes, they are. Particularly by other Christians.

You're making my point for me. Yes, some Christians accuse biblical literalists of misinterpreting the Bible. But Christian groups frequently assert that other Christian groups are wrong for many, many reasons. There's generally little compelling reason to take any of them as "more correct", though. It's just one group arguing that their religion is more correct than someone else's religion. It's not one group interpreting correctly and the other group misinterpreting. It's just two (or more) groups that disagree, and they typically have no sound reason to assert their beliefs over others'.

> No, its quite easy: outside of the context of religion...

Sure, it's easy when you can provide a reason that the literal interpretation is wrong. It's not easy when the reason is just that you don't like the literal interpretation (or it's easy but not valid).

[dragonwriter]

> Sure, it's easy when you can provide a reason that the literal interpretation is wrong.

That's frequently the case with criticism of biblical literalism. While, certainly, the people making the criticism have different interpretations that they prefer as correct (that is, obviously, what it means to say that an interpretation is wrong), and those that care enough about an interpretation to challenge another as incorrect are generally people for whom their preferred interpretation is also an element of the their religious belief and not just a more casual opinion, there are quite specific reasons given for challenges both to specific literal interpretations and to the doctrine of literalism itself (for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon when interpreted literally is one of the more common.)

[dpark]

> That's frequently the case

In my experience that is rarely the case. The reasons given are generally only compelling to others who already hold the same beliefs. If you're arguing against biblical literalism to others who consider the bible to be metaphorical, you will of course be successful. If you're arguing with a biblical literalist, you'll find that they fail to see the logic in your arguments. If you're arguing with a non-Christian, they'll likely just not care, but they might also find your arguments no more convincing than those of the literalist.

> for the latter, the existence of flat-out contradictions within the canon when interpreted literally is one of the more common.

This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or whatever text) is correct. If you start with that, and then add contradictions, then the only way to resolve the discrepancy is to say that the bible is metaphorical. If you don't take correctness as an axiom, it's quite reasonable to say that the bible is mostly if not completely literal but that parts of it are simply wrong. It's not a question of correctness of interpretation, then, so much as a question of correctness of the canon.

[dragonwriter]

> This is only compelling if you start with the axiom that the bible (or whatever text) is correct.

Which would perhaps be a serious problem with criticizing biblical literalism with that argument if the literalism being criticized ever failed to included a strong form of inerrantism; since, as a doctrine, Biblical literalism is always tied to strong-form inerrantism (which is the axiom that the Bible is, in every particular, both moral and factual, correct), and subsidiary doctrines on matters of fact and/or morals can only be derived from it through its intersection with inerrantism, it really isn't a problem that challenges to literalism rely on arguments that are valid in the presence of inerrantism.

> If you don't take correctness as an axiom

Without inerrantism, whether something is a correct or incorrect interpretation of the Bible doesn't have any significance. Literalism or not only has any meaning in the context of inerrantism.

[dpark]

Those are good points. I concede that arguments against literalism that rely on one's belief can be useful and valid for believers. I'm not sure this is sufficient to demonstrate that, e.g. ISIS's interpretation is any less correct than other Muslim's though. When ISIS says the scriptures demand that apostates be crucified, I'm not sure that it's sufficient to point to another passage that says, hypothetically, to love everyone. You might argue that these are in contradiction and therefore the crucifixion is metaphorical or out of context, but they could as easily argue that the two are not in conflict, or that the love part is the metaphor (or taken or of context).