Do you take the Bible literally?

[JoyG]

Yes & no. I believe the Bible is the Word of God, is infallible, & without error. I believe Adam & Eve really existed. I believe Jesus died & rose again to redeem people from their sins.

I do not neccesarily believe the universe was created in six 24-hour days. Could have been, & I would have no trouble accepting that. However, there is Scripture that leads me to believe God's definition of time is unlike ours.

I believe the parables Jesus used were to make a point only.

For the sake of your poll, I voted yes.

Sums up my feelings too.

 

[donaldbuzz&minnie]

I believe that a man named Jesus existed and lived an exemplary life. Since many of the miracles surrounding his life (virgin birth for example) were commonly attributed to God-like beings in his time, I take these events as an indication that the Biblical writers were doing what people do - simply attempting to pad his resume.

I am often confused about why many people today readily interpret the stories the Greeks and Romans told about their Gods as "myths" but accept the Biblical stories as literal fact. I don't understand the difference, and if someone can explain the difference rationally (not on the basis of feelings or what they were taught to believe or faith), I'd be really interested to hear it.

 

[jimmiej]

I believe that a man named Jesus existed and lived an exemplary life.

How could His life be exemplary if He was a liar? After all, He claimed to be the Son of God. Either He was really the Son of God, or He was a liar.

Luke 22

70They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am."

71Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."

 

[robinb]

No, not at all. In fact I won't even read it, the passages I have heard over my life are enough for me. They don't inspire or comfort me. I put it right up there with Shakesphere in terms of enjoyment or a way to live my life. No offense to anyone.

I would agree with you ... except I really like Shakespeare.

 

[shelby22]

Yes & no. I believe the Bible is the Word of God, is infallible, & without error. I believe Adam & Eve really existed. I believe Jesus died & rose again to redeem people from their sins.

I do not neccesarily believe the universe was created in six 24-hour days. Could have been, & I would have no trouble accepting that. However, there is Scripture that leads me to believe God's definition of time is unlike ours.

I believe the parables Jesus used were to make a point only.

For the sake of your poll, I voted yes.

I voted other for the same reasons.

 

[clgwli]

Many Christians (including me) believe the Bible is divinely inspired, therefore without human error. If God created the universe as the Bible teaches, surely He's powerful enough to make sure His Word is exactly as He intended.

What other source(s) do you use to determine your Christian beliefs?

If you truly believe that God is that almighty and powerful then why do humans have free will? Do you not believe that they can choose what they say or do with the Bible? Humans err and it would take a lot of interfering in life in order for the Bible to remain that pure. Also if you do take the Bible literally why do some pick and choose some of the items to take literally? I know for a fact the good portion of Protestants do not believe in the followin statements: You should believe that communion was the actual body & blood of Christ. You should always have head coverings in church and while prayin. You should believe that salvation alone is not enough, that you are required works.

You should also notice inconsistencies throughout the whole book. Works vs. salvation is one of them. How the actual act of baptism takees place is another. It all depends on what word you use for the translation of the word baptism. Both, depending on the scholar who translates, have been said to be correct.

A good portion of the New Testament was not put down into writing until a few generations later (using the idea that people didn't have a long life span like now). Even among Christians there is no agreement on what belongs in the Bible in regards to the books of the Old Testament.

I truly do not believe that the Bible is meant to be taken literally. I believe tradition handed down by word holds just as much importance as the Bible. The Bible is a guide, not a manual. I also do not believe that God interferes in our lives so much that the Bible remains that pure after centuries of many humans touching it and translating it.

If that were the case why are there differences in number of books and interpretation of the scripture? To say it is infallible means someone is wrong. Are you willing to admit you are wrong?

 

[Aardvarks]

I don't "take" the Bible one way or another, either. It's a series of myths that make folks feel good and that provide rules to live by. Afraid I don't see it as anything more.

Well put Took and MoniqueU, include me in

 

[PlainJane]

Yes & no. I believe the Bible is the Word of God, is infallible, & without error. I believe Adam & Eve really existed. I believe Jesus died & rose again to redeem people from their sins.

I do not neccesarily believe the universe was created in six 24-hour days. Could have been, & I would have no trouble accepting that. However, there is Scripture that leads me to believe God's definition of time is unlike ours.

I believe the parables Jesus used were to make a point only.

For the sake of your poll, I voted yes.

Mabye hundreds might be a slight exageration but not written when Jesus was around.

[edit] Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the consensus or majority view as follows:

Mark: c. 68–73,[6] c 65-70[1]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[6] c 80-85.[1] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[6], c 80-85[1]
John: c 90-100,[1] c. 90–110,[7] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating)

http://www.tempemasjid.com/maurice/10sources.htm

I don't understand why books being written after Jesus' death and resurrection are a problem. There were still people alive who had witnessed Jesus' life. Also, a lot of the books written in the NT are about the beginning of the church, which occurred after Jesus.

Color me confused

 

[Buckalew11]

If you truly believe that God is that almighty and powerful then why do humans have free will? Do you not believe that they can choose what they say or do with the Bible? Humans err and it would take a lot of interfering in life in order for the Bible to remain that pure. Also if you do take the Bible literally why do some pick and choose some of the items to take literally? I know for a fact the good portion of Protestants do not believe in the followin statements: You should believe that communion was the actual body & blood of Christ. You should always have head coverings in church and while prayin. You should believe that salvation alone is not enough, that you are required works.

You should also notice inconsistencies throughout the whole book. Works vs. salvation is one of them. How the actual act of baptism takees place is another. It all depends on what word you use for the translation of the word baptism. Both, depending on the scholar who translates, have been said to be correct.

A good portion of the New Testament was not put down into writing until a few generations later (using the idea that people didn't have a long life span like now). Even among Christians there is no agreement on what belongs in the Bible in regards to the books of the Old Testament.

I truly do not believe that the Bible is meant to be taken literally. I believe tradition handed down by word holds just as much importance as the Bible. The Bible is a guide, not a manual. I also do not believe that God interferes in our lives so much that the Bible remains that pure after centuries of many humans touching it and translating it.

If that were the case why are there differences in number of books and interpretation of the scripture? To say it is infallible means someone is wrong. Are you willing to admit you are wrong?

Personally, I do think God is all powerful and did give humans free will. I believe God created humans for relationship with Himself. I think He wants us to choose to love Him.

I think God is pwerful enough to keep His Word for us. Sure, there are English translations and words used in my Bible that may not be the same as the original. So, we have learned to look to the original for the correct translation of a word. I do not agree that it would take a lot of interfering to keep it pure--not with the original.

As far as your examples of literal vs. not as protestents--well, that is interpretation. Whether you believe the bread and wine to turn to blood or body is not something that your salvation depends on. I believe Christ was saying "this is (represents my body), take and eat"...etc. My Catholic friends would say it turns to the actual body once taken. Although these are different views, they do not matter in the plan of what they are or why we do them. If they are just bread and wine, they'll be just bread and wine for the Catholic also. If they are His blood and body, they'll also be that way for me when I partake of them too.
Maybe I am supposed to have a head covering in church--that isn't something I do and I might be wrong for not doing it. I'd have to look into it more to give you a thought.

I think the Bible is pretty clear on works and salvation. Salvation brings works but works is not required for salvation itself. If I am saved and not doing works then yes, I definitely have trouble there and it would need to be looked at. But there is no work that will earn me Heaven. Jesus's Work did that for all of us who choose Him.

I've been dunked as I believe Jesus was also by John the Baptist. Is sprinkling wrong? I have no idea but personally do not think it is. I do not believe baptism is a requirement for heaven although I do believe if you have time and can be baptized, you should do it as an outward sign of what has taken place within your heart and life.

I respect your thoughts and views and I'm sharing mine with you. I believe the jist of the bible is to show the lineage of Christ, whose life was planned by God aa the way of salvation for sins for His people. The stories of the lives of Abraham, Noah, David etc. show us many things about life and about the nature of God. These people were part of the linage of Christ (IMB) and their stories are of value to me and, I think, to all of us.

I believe that the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ is so simple that interpretations cannot change it. We can add all kinds of church and denominational rules around it but it is still what it is. Man-made rules are just that, man made rules. I do think man has taken liberties with the bible and tried to twist things into what they want it to say or a way to control people or a reason to fight when God was not leading. Those things are wrong and I feel people will be held accountable for it. I just think people tend to try to complicate a very simple plan that God planned for man once sin entered the world.
I do not have all the answers; I am filled with lots of questions myself. But honestly, none of the questions make me doubt salvation through Christ. They are more or less just details.

 

[shortbun]

Because I've studied ancient civilizations, I realize that many stories in the Bible were old stories that had been told and retold but changed to back up the guys who wrote the Bible. I've read it, once thoroughly and once in pieces during a study class. Many scholars of the Bible agree that much of it is taken from the folklore of ancient civilizations. It's a great book, there is much to be understood from it. I do not believe it to be 'the word of God.' Having played 'telephone' and seen the flawed men who call themselves men of God, I feel it is surely misinterpreted at best.

 

[Buckalew11]

I don't understand why books being written after Jesus' death and resurrection are a problem. There were still people alive who had witnessed Jesus' life. Also, a lot of the books written in the NT are about the beginning of the church, which occurred after Jesus.

Color me confused

Me too. While Jesus was with God (as we believe They are One and that the bible tells us so) at the beginning of time, He was not walking the earth when the OT was passed or written down. Still, the OT is very revelant so why wouldn't scripture written after His death be relevant too.

 

[SydneyBristow]

Yes.

 

[kydisneyfans]

A vote for yes here.

The interesting thing I see is that the non believers on the postings have Obama support tags.

Personally, if you are looking for religious advice, the Disboards is the last place that I would look.

 

[Buckalew11]

I don't think the people who are looking for religoius advice are few and far between on the DIS. I do believe it is a way to voice your opinion (believer or not) and also clear the air on some issues and just discuss issues, thoughts or questions.

I haven't paid attention to political support tags. Obama is Christian so obviously that is not an issue in their choice. I think McCain is Christian but I'm not even sure I've heard anything about his beliefs. Palin, yes, she seems to be quite conservative. I saw Biden interviewed and he also talked about God quite a bit.

 

[Tiggernut_jadie]

A vote for yes here.

The interesting thing I see is that the non believers on the postings have Obama support tags.

Personally, if you are looking for religious advice, the Disboards is the last place that I would look.

You say that as though its a BAD thing!

 

[clgwli]

Personally, I do think God is all powerful and did give humans free will. I believe God created humans for relationship with Himself. I think He wants us to choose to love Him.

I think God is pwerful enough to keep His Word for us. Sure, there are English translations and words used in my Bible that may not be the same as the original. So, we have learned to look to the original for the correct translation of a word. I do not agree that it would take a lot of interfering to keep it pure--not with the original.

As far as your examples of literal vs. not as protestents--well, that is interpretation. Whether you believe the bread and wine to turn to blood or body is not something that your salvation depends on. I believe Christ was saying "this is (represents my body), take and eat"...etc. My Catholic friends would say it turns to the actual body once taken. Although these are different views, they do not matter in the plan of what they are or why we do them. If they are just bread and wine, they'll be just bread and wine for the Catholic also. If they are His blood and body, they'll also be that way for me when I partake of them too.
Maybe I am supposed to have a head covering in church--that isn't something I do and I might be wrong for not doing it. I'd have to look into it more to give you a thought.

I think the Bible is pretty clear on works and salvation. Salvation brings works but works is not required for salvation itself. If I am saved and not doing works then yes, I definitely have trouble there and it would need to be looked at. But there is no work that will earn me Heaven. Jesus's Work did that for all of us who choose Him.

I've been dunked as I believe Jesus was also by John the Baptist. Is sprinkling wrong? I have no idea but personally do not think it is. I do not believe baptism is a requirement for heaven although I do believe if you have time and can be baptized, you should do it as an outward sign of what has taken place within your heart and life.

I respect your thoughts and views and I'm sharing mine with you. I believe the jist of the bible is to show the lineage of Christ, whose life was planned by God aa the way of salvation for sins for His people. The stories of the lives of Abraham, Noah, David etc. show us many things about life and about the nature of God. These people were part of the linage of Christ (IMB) and their stories are of value to me and, I think, to all of us.

I believe that the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ is so simple that interpretations cannot change it. We can add all kinds of church and denominational rules around it but it is still what it is. Man-made rules are just that, man made rules. I do think man has taken liberties with the bible and tried to twist things into what they want it to say or a way to control people or a reason to fight when God was not leading. Those things are wrong and I feel people will be held accountable for it. I just think people tend to try to complicate a very simple plan that God planned for man once sin entered the world.
I do not have all the answers; I am filled with lots of questions myself. But honestly, none of the questions make me doubt salvation through Christ. They are more or less just details.

I do appreciate your point of view. I know we can go on an on about it but in the end we'd still probably disagree. I am a believer in God and the Bible. I am just not a literalist which is why we won't agree I do truly appreciate the point of view though. It just is my feelings on why I use the Bible as a guide and not a true word for word manual. It is filled with great stories, histories and explanations. I just don't feel you can follow everything. A lot of the New Testament needs to be taken under the context it was written. A good number of literalists I know personally (not meaning you or all here even) do not do it and learn verses to explain when the story behind the verse matters more.

I do respect others opinions a lot. I also like asking questions to gain perspective. I do not try to put down. I only like hearing and learning. Sometimes I rethink a few things. Other times it makes me more firm in my thoughts.

Corinthians 11 discusses coverings for women if I am recalling correctly. Not saying it should change your mind and I am not trying to change your mind on anything. I just find that one a personal internal issue for me. I am torn if I should be doing it or not. If I do will I be bringing attention to myself while praying which is not something I believe in doing? Is this one of the many things that is just situational? I'm still torn.

FWIW to the poster talking about Obama. I voted for him. I am Christian. Most of my Christian friends are Obama supporters as well. It would not be wise to make such a blanket statement about a group especially on the internet.

 

[Hercules10]

I was all for multiple wives like the old testament had...until I got married. One's enuf....

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

I see it as a fairy tale or a book of short stories. Way to many inconsistancies to be anything but, IMO.

To be sure there is much that can be learned from this (and any) storytelling I'm just not one to literally believe in magical hoodoo.

 

[Buckalew11]

The one that I have never looked into that bothers me when I think about (without studying it though) is about cutting your hair. Hopefully that one was for the time it was written because not only am I guilty of it, I'm also aiding and abetting.

Thankfully, I do not believe we have to follow word for wrod or try to keep rules to have salvation through Christ. If it was based on my actions and own merit, I'd be failing miserably. I am so not perfect--only through Christ can I be accepted by God.

 

[Buckalew11]

I was all for multiple wives like the old testament had...until I got married. One's enuf....

Well, see women ARE smarter. We've always known one DH was enough.