Question: Do You Believe The Bible Is Literally True?

8 Comments on “Question: Do You Believe The Bible Is Literally True?”

1. On July 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm
   Jeremy said:
   

   Yes, I believe the Bible is literally true.

2. On July 21st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
   KenL said:
   

   Count me in the 31%, then. Yes, it’s true.

3. On July 21st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
   Sam said:
   

   I believe some parts of the Bible are literally true and some aren’t. It all depends on the style of writing you are looking at. If you try to take Song of Solomon literally, it sounds like his lover is just about the most horrendous freak of a person in the world, with a neck like an ivory tower and all that. Also, in the account of creation, the word “day” is used, but the sun and moon which will “serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years” are not created until the third “day.” Now, it’s possible that God used that time frame before he created it, but it’s also true that the word “day” has multiple meanings, even in the original Hebrew. Besides that, Jesus Himself tells loads of parables which didn’t necessarily really happen, but serve the purpose of showing the truth. It’s kind of a stretch to believe that all of Jesus’s parables were real accounts of real events, and it’s irrelevant. That’s not the important part, and His listeners understood that.

   Regardless, the history is very much true in a literal sense, and the poetry is truth, though it means looking deeper to find it. I believe the Bible to be completely true, but not necessarily literal, and the Holy Spirit will lead us to understanding. Granted, all that’s a little hard to say when answering a poll.

4. On July 21st, 2009 at 5:55 pm
   bev lauer said:
   

   I believe the Bible is 100% true. But what does ” inspired” Word of God mean- inspired by who/m if not spoken by God?If not directly,100% from God then what parts do you believe in? I am glad I do not have to fill in any” gaps.”

5. On July 21st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
   Chris said:
   

   Thanks for chiming in KenL & Jeremy.

   You too bev lauer, and good questions.

   Sam makes some good points too. Of course, if the Bible specifically says Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and he told them parables, then it is indeed literally true, correct? I think I hear you saying that we need to be intelligent in our discussion of the issue of literalness, and I don’t hear you saying that things the Bible purports to be literally true (e.g., Jesus walking on the water) are actually allegorical. Correct me if I’m wrong. And thanks for sharing your thoughts too.

6. On July 22nd, 2009 at 5:48 am
   Zack Pike said:
   

   I’d agree with Sam on that one. Jesus, as a speaker, uses hyperbole, metaphor, and parables - if He’s God, then we can assume the inspired word of God will also contain similar language devices.

   When people are asked if the Bible is literally true, it’s almost a loaded question - if you say yes, then it’s often assumed that you think that God made the Universe in 144 hours or less (Genesis), that Adam was literally sculpted out of clay (Genesis), that God once killed a many-headed sea monster and fed it to the creatures of the desert (Psalms), and that God looks like He’s got semi-precious stones for skin (Revelations.) Some people believe those things, but I don’t think they’re true. Nor do I think one’s belief on those matters are central to being a Christian.

   On the flip side, when one answers “no,” people may assume that you don’t believe in the Trinity, or the miracles of Jesus and the prophets, or the resurrection of the dead. And I do believe in those things, and think they’re pretty central to the faith.

   And so, I frankly don’t put much stock in those polls - they don’t really say a whole lot about the health of the American church, except that we may put way too much time and effort into discussing things like the meaning of the word “literally.”

7. On August 26th, 2009 at 11:06 am
   Suzanne Kao said:
   

   I agree with Zach, that we should not put too much time and effort into discussing the meaning of the word “literal or literally”. However, since we are discussing the subject here, I’d think it is a good place to go into deeper. Where else do we have the forum to do that as a “layman”?

   If we have a better handle on this question, we would feel more confidence to give an answer when asked.

   First of all, does “literal” mean all the 66 books in the Bible are dictated from the voice of the Holy Spirit? Probably not. Then, how did it come about the concept of the Bible being “literal”? If it is not dictation, then, it is “men spoke from God as they carried along by the Holy Spirit” - II Peter 1:21 Given the fallacy of men/women in everything we do - God is perfect, but we are not, including those human authors who penned the Bible, could it be possible that men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit make some inconsequential errors?

   The Catholic church was mistaken in the cardinal truth for over 10 centuries, before it was not reformed. Can the “literal” concept have room for further exploration or even some correction?

   Being a Christian, a follower of Christ, a child of God, does not totally depend on the Bible being “literal” or not. Being a Christian is experiencing God’s divine grace and enlightment and enablement by the power of the Holy Spirit to live a separated life on earth, for the Glory of God, and a witness of Christ Jesus. So I appreciate the point that Sam made: the Bible is completely true, but not necessarily “literal”. I hope my comment would inspire more discussion on this “question”.

8. On August 26th, 2009 at 11:12 am
   Suzanne Kao said:
   

   Correction: before it was reformed, not ” before it was not reformed,”

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

get a new challenge

get an audio challenge

get an image challenge

help

widget by reCAPTCHA