31% of American adults believe the Bible is Literal Word of God - Belief strongest among those without college degrees

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again the question still stands - how do you deal with scientific discoveries that question some of the literal truths, such as creation?

It depends on which specific discoveries we are talking about, and how those discoveries are interpreted. I don't believe that it can be "proven," for example, that human beings developed from prior non-human species. Similarities can be shown, but that's about as far as we can go. They don't prove an organic connection. Now, as for animal evolution, even on a macro scale, well, that is a different issue. I believe that there is room for that in the Biblical text. Genesis 1 uses the phrase, "Let the earth bring forth" in relation to animals, which could suggest some kind of natural process being used in their creation. Ultimately, I see no necessary conflict between science and the Bible.

I don't see a conflict either so in that sense I agree. Judging by the state of the argument across the country - it would seem many people do. The fact that creationist museums exist showing mankind co-existing with dinosaurs - show how far into farce the whole thing has become.

For some, there's not even any leeway for the idea that some of the old testament stories, as written, are derived from the myths of other cultures. The story of Noahs Ark has parallels to a similar story in Mesopotamian mythology.

[KarenCee 3]

Thank god I'm atheist.

That's a misnomer. You can't thank "god" if you're an atheist.

I had a professor who worshiped Greenspan. Once told us he was God.

I had another professor who was a gay hippie type, he thought marriage was officially sanctioned rape.

But those were the exceptions, most of my professors simply taught and kept the sermonizing to a minimum.

My Old Testament professor in college taught from a historical point of view. Yes, at one time I attended a christian college...this professor was different than your average run of the mill christian college teacher. He didn't actively push religion in each and every lesson he taught. He was my favourite teacher there.

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text.

That is a concept of faith that I've never understood. It certainly isn't the Biblical view. Faith is not a thing that has value in and of itself, but only in relation to a proper object. Faith in something false is worthless, no matter the strength of the faith. Christianity is not merely a set of ideas or philosophical concepts, but is at its core about a set of events which happened in real world history; Christian faith is rooted in those events. If they didn't actually happen, then that faith is foolish.

But that doesn't answer the question why many "people of faith" seem hell-bent on subverting science in order to prove something that simply can't be proven. Or why people feel the need to validate their faith in say, Creation, with questionable interpretations of scientific research.

I think it does answer that question...you said faith doesn't require proof, and so shouldn't be threatened by things that question the literal truth of the text. I'm saying that since Christian faith is centered in events described in the Biblical texts, then if the texts are not true in the ordinary sense (the way events in the newspaper are true, not "Universal 'Truths'"), then that faith is misplaced.

As far as science goes, I don't accept the view that the Earth was made in 144 hours 6,000 years ago, nor do I believe that is how the text of Genesis 1 & 2 is intended to be understood. I do, however, believe in an actual Adam and Eve, who were created separate from animals, from whom every human being since is descended. I don't think there is any way around that, as far as the Biblical text is concerned.

I can't see how the Earth was created in literal days. I was taught that the Earth was created in 6 days with God resting on the seventh (hence the premise for the Sabbath?). I believe in a creation, but not of the speed that I was taught. Science and religion have always been like oil and water...they just don't mix. Especially with ultra conservatives.

This are examples on why I don't think the bible should be taken literally

Leviticus 20:27

"A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them."

Leviticus 24:16

Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

preety scary, uh?

But I think with common sense, the true message comes through and it is a good thing

Caro,

Caro, these verses are from the OT. This is what I've been taught: Since Jesus came, died, and resurrected, the OT is no longer adhered to as far as law. His sacrifice did away with law and allowed for grace. Those verses *should NOT* be taken literal. Unfortunately there are some that refuse to accept that and want to adhere to the laws of the OT. *sigh*

Another thing that I found fascinating was something my OT History professor taught me many years ago. He believes in the "gap theory". He believes in a time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 was when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Someone posted a thought that Adam and Eve were run out of the garden of Eden by the dinosaurs. I can see how that would have been possible. This whole subject is interesting...yet I'm still at a point in my life where I don't know what to believe other than there is a higher being. My people call him the "Great Spirit"...many of you call him God.

[chri'stina 190]

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text.

That is a concept of faith that I've never understood. It certainly isn't the Biblical view. Faith is not a thing that has value in and of itself, but only in relation to a proper object. Faith in something false is worthless, no matter the strength of the faith. Christianity is not merely a set of ideas or philosophical concepts, but is at its core about a set of events which happened in real world history; Christian faith is rooted in those events. If they didn't actually happen, then that faith is foolish.

Scott, can Jesus' message, the Gospel, not stand on its on merit in spite of history? I personally don't see that our Judeo-Christian faith must be rooted in a factual history to be legitimate. It's the message.

No, it can't. The message of the Gospel is that Jesus, who is God in real human flesh, died an actual death for the sins of the World at a specific time in real history, then actually rose bodily (physically) from the dead on the third day, and was seen by over 500 witnesses. If that didn't happen in factual history, then all of Christianity falls. That is how the New Testament writers, who were there at the time, and were witnesses of the events, spoke. They leave no room for a Christian message that is true even if the core events did not actually happen. There is a line in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds that the old 19th century theological liberals couldn't stand, and wanted to remove: "and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate." They didn't like that because it places the content of the Creeds in ordinary history, instead of some "Higher History" which was above and independent of everyday, newspaper type history. So they were very motivated to try to claim that Pilate never existed, and neither did the office that the Bible claims he held. Then a stone slab from the 1st century with Pilate's name and office inscribed on it was found..... they don't argue that way anymore

So if it turned out that there was no resurrection, you'd stop believing in all the teachings of Christianity? What about the other details? What if it turned out there was no Lazarus, for example?

Scott already answered this but I totally agree with what he said.

If there was no resurrection, I would not believe anymore. If I did, I would be believing a liar and a lie. The resurrection is extremely important in Christianity.

Example in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-19 (Paul's writing)

The Resurrection of Christ

1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Edited May 26, 2007 by stina&suj

[ace13 0]

I believe the Bible is the word of God, but I don't believe it is to be read literally word for word. Everything that is written is true. There is much underlying meaning and imagery that is difficult for many people to understand. You have to have an understanding of history and the time period it was written in to understand it. It was not designed to pull one sentence out, examine it and dispute it. It is to be taken as a whole.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Wow, Bible study. And it ain't even Sunday yet.

[ace13 0]

Question for all the Believers:

God created Eden and the sent Adam and Eve out to the East.

So, Eden is on Earth. Where is it? I know it is in the Middle East somewhere because it talks about 3 rivers that lead out of the garden (Phishon, Gihon, and the Tigris). Well, I recognize the Tigris...Do you think Eden is hidden from us until the second coming?

[chri'stina 190]

Question for all the Believers:

God created Eden and the sent Adam and Eve out to the East.

So, Eden is on Earth. Where is it? I know it is in the Middle East somewhere because it talks about 3 rivers that lead out of the garden (Phishon, Gihon, and the Tigris). Well, I recognize the Tigris...Do you think Eden is hidden from us until the second coming?

Hey ace. Just wanted to tell you I saw your Q but don't really have an answer for it.

I also think it was somewhere in the middle east, and have heard theories of different places there that it could have been. But whether it's hidden or not, I have no idea.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Didn't you pay attention, Bush bombed the hell (no pun intended) out of Eden a few years ago.

[chri'stina 190]

Wow, Bible study. And it ain't even Sunday yet.

Well since the question was asked, the best way for me to explain what I believe is to quote where my beliefs come from. And it doesn't have to be sunday for a bible study.

I really don't know if this thread is going to keep going with more questions. Maybe! But I probably won't be around to answer more Q's this weekend. It's time to have fun and relax! Memorial Day weekend, yay.

Edited May 26, 2007 by stina&suj

[ace13 0]

Adam is having a conversation with God, and God asks him...'why are you so sad, Adam?'

Adam answers...'I just feel kinda lonely. I need a mate.'

God tells him in reply, 'Well, I have someone in mind for you. She will be called 'woman.' She will cook, clean, tell you how amazing you are, do anything you ask.''

Adam asked, 'What will she cost me?'

God answered, "Eh, an arm and a leg.'

Adam said...'what can I get for a rib?'

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Didn't you pay attention, Bush bombed the hell (no pun intended) out of Eden a few years ago.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text.

That is a concept of faith that I've never understood. It certainly isn't the Biblical view. Faith is not a thing that has value in and of itself, but only in relation to a proper object. Faith in something false is worthless, no matter the strength of the faith. Christianity is not merely a set of ideas or philosophical concepts, but is at its core about a set of events which happened in real world history; Christian faith is rooted in those events. If they didn't actually happen, then that faith is foolish.

Scott, can Jesus' message, the Gospel, not stand on its on merit in spite of history? I personally don't see that our Judeo-Christian faith must be rooted in a factual history to be legitimate. It's the message.

No, it can't. The message of the Gospel is that Jesus, who is God in real human flesh, died an actual death for the sins of the World at a specific time in real history, then actually rose bodily (physically) from the dead on the third day, and was seen by over 500 witnesses. If that didn't happen in factual history, then all of Christianity falls. That is how the New Testament writers, who were there at the time, and were witnesses of the events, spoke. They leave no room for a Christian message that is true even if the core events did not actually happen. There is a line in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds that the old 19th century theological liberals couldn't stand, and wanted to remove: "and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate." They didn't like that because it places the content of the Creeds in ordinary history, instead of some "Higher History" which was above and independent of everyday, newspaper type history. So they were very motivated to try to claim that Pilate never existed, and neither did the office that the Bible claims he held. Then a stone slab from the 1st century with Pilate's name and office inscribed on it was found..... they don't argue that way anymore

So if it turned out that there was no resurrection, you'd stop believing in all the teachings of Christianity? What about the other details? What if it turned out there was no Lazarus, for example?

Scott already answered this but I totally agree with what he said.

If there was no resurrection, I would not believe anymore. If I did, I would be believing a liar and a lie. The resurrection is extremely important in Christianity.

That is understandable, but you agree that belief (faith) is unverifiable by any historical records or facts? I think this is at the heart of why biblical literalists and college professors are at odds with each other at times. Any study into history or exploration of science that might challenge a literal belief in the Bible becomes an assault on those beliefs. For example, the story of Jonah in the belly of a whale, or Noah's ark filled with a pair of every land animal - they are two accounts that science and history can demonstrate as not possible. The unfortunate consequence is that college students who are biblical literalists are faced with either abandoning their beliefs or be in constant contempt of what the professors are teaching them.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Caro, these verses are from the OT. This is what I've been taught: Since Jesus came, died, and resurrected, the OT is no longer adhered to as far as law. His sacrifice did away with law and allowed for grace. Those verses *should NOT* be taken literal. Unfortunately there are some that refuse to accept that and want to adhere to the laws of the OT. *sigh*

Another thing that I found fascinating was something my OT History professor taught me many years ago. He believes in the "gap theory". He believes in a time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 was when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Someone posted a thought that Adam and Eve were run out of the garden of Eden by the dinosaurs. I can see how that would have been possible. This whole subject is interesting...yet I'm still at a point in my life where I don't know what to believe other than there is a higher being. My people call him the "Great Spirit"...many of you call him God.

Interesting discussion! keep them coming!

I know that I believe, and I'm always intersted in other points of view

Sorry I had to log off yesterday and missed part of it

For example, regarding the Genesis...my religion teacher (who converted from judaism to roman catholicism) said that the genesis should be interpreted as "everything in the creation of the world -big bang, oxigen, protozoaries evolving into eucariots and the whole thing) happened because it was God's will...nothing was random" I adhere to that theory.

Caro,

Edited May 26, 2007 by JVKn'CVO

[Scott & Lai 12]

Wow, there's a lot here I'd like to respond to; I'll try to keep my responses short...don't have all day for this

I can see your point - the fundamental belief of Christianity is that God manifest Himself as Man, was crucified, died and then buried...and on the 3rd day rose again from the dead, etc. - however, if you look at that tantimount belief - the corner stone of Christian faith - the only verifiable historical fact is that a man named Jesus was put to death by Pontius Pilate. That doesn't validate the rest of that radical belief - that Jesus was the Christ Himself. So even though we can point out historical reference to certain events, we have no historical proof that Jesus defied death or that he was God incarnate - that requires pure faith. Perhaps that is what 19th century theologians were concerned about - not that that specific event (crucified by Pontius Pilate) didn't occur, but that Christians may see that as proof of faith?

Actually there is historical evidence of the resurrection, as the Gospels themselves are eyewitness testimonies of people who were there at the time of the events. True, even as eyewitness testimonies they don't directly prove that Jesus is God in the flesh, since that is not something observable. However, he did claim to be, and gave his death and resurrection as evidence of that. This is where faith comes in; it is not without proof, but takes what is demonstrated and continues on where what is "proveable" leaves off.

I don't see a conflict either so in that sense I agree. Judging by the state of the argument across the country - it would seem many people do. The fact that creationist museums exist showing mankind co-existing with dinosaurs - show how far into farce the whole thing has become.

For some, there's not even any leeway for the idea that some of the old testament stories, as written, are derived from the myths of other cultures. The story of Noahs Ark has parallels to a similar story in Mesopotamian mythology.

This is sort of a chicken and egg thing. Yes there are parallel flood stories, but that doesn't necessarily indicate that the Biblical story was derived from them. It could be the other way around, or they could all be taken from even earlier sources which are no longer extant. Moses was highly educated, and had access to the records in Egypt, so could very well have been using ancient sources found there. I see the other flood stories as corruptions of distant memories of the event, while the Biblical story had the advantage of God's general editorship to correct any such corruptions

I can't see how the Earth was created in literal days. I was taught that the Earth was created in 6 days with God resting on the seventh (hence the premise for the Sabbath?). I believe in a creation, but not of the speed that I was taught. Science and religion have always been like oil and water...they just don't mix. Especially with ultra conservatives.

The Sabbath is indeed partly based in God resting on the Seventh Day; it is also based in the Exodus. Also, the seventh day itself is a clue to how the days of Genesis 1 should be understood, as even though it is a "Day", it doesn't have an ending. So there is more going on there than a woodenly literalistic (as opposed to a proper sense of "literal") understanding of the days as 1440 minute periods of time would indicate.

This are examples on why I don't think the bible should be taken literally

Leviticus 20:27

"A man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them."

Leviticus 24:16

Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

preety scary, uh?

But I think with common sense, the true message comes through and it is a good thing

Caro, these verses are from the OT. This is what I've been taught: Since Jesus came, died, and resurrected, the OT is no longer adhered to as far as law. His sacrifice did away with law and allowed for grace. Those verses *should NOT* be taken literal. Unfortunately there are some that refuse to accept that and want to adhere to the laws of the OT. *sigh*

Also, the OT laws were given specifically and uniquely to OT Israel. They were the national civic and religious laws of Israel, and cannot properly be lifted out of that context and made the law of nations today. The OT is to be interpreted through the Cross of Jesus; we can't simply apply OT laws as though Christ didn't die and rise.

Another thing that I found fascinating was something my OT History professor taught me many years ago. He believes in the "gap theory". He believes in a time period between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 was when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Someone posted a thought that Adam and Eve were run out of the garden of Eden by the dinosaurs. I can see how that would have been possible. This whole subject is interesting...yet I'm still at a point in my life where I don't know what to believe other than there is a higher being. My people call him the "Great Spirit"...many of you call him God.

Personally, I don't buy that gap theory; I don't believe there is room for it between those verses. Verse one is about the creation of the entire Universe. Verse two begins the actual description of the creation of the Earth, and it starts from a time when the Earth had not fully formed. I believe that Genesis 1 actually describes a period far far longer than our idea of a week, and there is room for the dinosaurs during the creation "week". Whether there were dinosaurs at the same time as Man, I don't know, as dinosaurs are not directly mentioned in the Bible. However, there are some creatures in the Bible that appear to be a sort of mythological memory of some large and terrifying creatures that could have been dinosaurs, certainly they don't quite fit with any living species we know today. I'm thinking of Leviathan, Behemoth, and Rahab.

As for dinosaurs running Adam and Eve out of the Garden, that's a bit fanciful at best. God himself sent them out, and an angel (not a dinosaur )barred the entrance to the Garden.

Question for all the Believers:

God created Eden and the sent Adam and Eve out to the East.

So, Eden is on Earth. Where is it? I know it is in the Middle East somewhere because it talks about 3 rivers that lead out of the garden (Phishon, Gihon, and the Tigris). Well, I recognize the Tigris...Do you think Eden is hidden from us until the second coming?

I think Eden was destroyed in the Flood. It certainly isn't there anymore. We won't be returning to the Garden in the Resurrection, but will be in a City, in the midst of which will be the Tree of Life which we were denied after the Fall.

That is understandable, but you agree that belief (faith) is unverifiable by any historical records or facts? I think this is at the heart of why biblical literalists and college professors are at odds with each other at times. Any study into history or exploration of science that might challenge a literal belief in the Bible becomes an assault on those beliefs. For example, the story of Jonah in the belly of a whale, or Noah's ark filled with a pair of every land animal - they are two accounts that science and history can demonstrate as not possible. The unfortunate consequence is that college students who are biblical literalists are faced with either abandoning their beliefs or be in constant contempt of what the professors are teaching them.

No, I don't agree that faith is unverifiable. I believe faith is founded in fact, but goes further. When John the Baptizer was in prison, he began to question whether Jesus was the Messiah. He sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the one, or should they look for another. Jesus didn't tell them that they were just to believe in spite of a lack of any facts, but gave them evidence of the miracles that he was performing. And when Thomas doubted that Jesus was the same one who had died a little over a week prior, Jesus showed Thomas the wounds in his hands and side...he didn't say, "You have to believe without evidence, or it isn't faith."

How do science and history demonstrate that the Jonah and Flood stories are not possible? We may not have found incontrovertable evidence of a global flood, but there's also a question of what that evidence would look like. The flood question is very complicated, and I don't have time right now to go into it, but it is far from a foregone conclusion that is could not have happened. One question is when it would have occurred. I agree that a global flood around 5,000 years ago is unlikely, but again, I don't hold to the Young Earth of many Fundamentalists. If the issue is the capacity of the ark, I don't think that is a problem. The ark was very large, so had plenty of room. Most land species are not very large; few are elephant-sized. There is also the question of how many specific species existed at the time, and thus how many would be represented on the ark. There were probably fewer actual "species" than there are today. Plus, the animals were not necessarily all fully grown individuals, which would also reduce the needed space.

As for Jonah and the whale, you're thinking of Pinocchio Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale, which as I'm sure you have in mind, would be impossible since whales can't swallow whole something as large as a man. The text doesn't say "whale," it says a "great fish." What kind of creature that was is unclear, but there are species of fish that could swallow a person. It wasn't even necessarily a species that we know of today; it might be extinct now, or it could be a living species which we haven't discovered yet.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Interesting discussion! keep them coming!

I know that I believe, and I'm always intersted in other points of view

Sorry I had to log off yesterday and missed part of it

For example, regarding the Genesis...my religion teacher (who converted from judaism to roman catholicism) said that the genesis should be interpreted as "everything in the creation of the world -big bang, oxigen, protozoaries evolving into eucariots and the whole thing) happened because it was God's will...nothing was random" I adhere to that theory.

Caro,

That's essentially what I believe, specifically, I think the Big Bang would be Genesis 1:1. As for animal evolution, I'm not sure, but as I said, I think there is room for it in the wording of Genesis 1. Man, however, is specifically stated to have been created separately and distinct from the animals.