Percentage of Americans Viewing Scripture...

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible?

  • The Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.

  • The Bible is the inspired Word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally.

  • The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Aabbie James

Maintain love and truth in perfect balance
Jul 15, 2019
423
483
West Coast
✟37,760.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Percentage of Americans Viewing Scripture as Literal Word of God Reaches New Low by Scott Barkley, July 9, 2022. THE BAPTIST MESSENGER.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)—A survey of Americans and their view of Scripture reflects a trend of disassociation from religion. One’s exposure to Scripture, however, can also factor in those results.

The number of Americans accepting the Bible as the literal Word of God has reached its lowest point since Gallup began the study in 1976, according to its most recent findings. The new figure of 20 percent is down from the 24 percent of the most recent poll in 2017.

What say you?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Desk trauma

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,401
5,102
New Jersey
✟336,208.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
None of the above. The Bible is a book written by human beings who genuinely encountered God and who wrote down their best understanding of those encounters.

This might be close to option #2, but I'd want you to carefully define what you mean by "inspired". I've heard the phrase "inspired by God" to mean more-or-less "dictated by God", and I'd want to avoid that meaning.

The linked article does an interesting dance around the term "taken literally". John Hammett is quoted in the article as explaining that if you correctly interpret figurative passages as figurative rather than literal, that still counts as interpreting the passages "literally":
But literal interpretation of figurative language requires understanding what the figures literally mean.
That's a very confusing way to use the terminology.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: durangodawood
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,606
15,761
Colorado
✟433,253.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
As I don't know whether God exists, I can't really pick one answer with any confidence.

But I can confidently say it's not option 1. There's too much contrary evidence staring us in the face for that to be true.

(I'm curious to see the poll results, but not at the price of lying about my opinion. I simple and honest "I dont know" poll option could have fixed that.)
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Percentage of Americans Viewing Scripture as Literal Word of God Reaches New Low by Scott Barkley, July 9, 2022. THE BAPTIST MESSENGER.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)—A survey of Americans and their view of Scripture reflects a trend of disassociation from religion. One’s exposure to Scripture, however, can also factor in those results.

The number of Americans accepting the Bible as the literal Word of God has reached its lowest point since Gallup began the study in 1976, according to its most recent findings. The new figure of 20 percent is down from the 24 percent of the most recent poll in 2017.

What say you?
What do you mean by "literal"?
Not everything in the Bible is literal. Some is meant to be metaphorical. It's still literally true, however.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,606
15,761
Colorado
✟433,253.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
What do you mean by "literal"?
Not everything in the Bible is literal. Some is meant to be metaphorical. It's still literally true, however.
Metaphors arent literally true. That would be an absurd word-breaking contradiction.

lit·er·al
adjective
  1. 1. taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
    "dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread"
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Metaphors arent literally true. That would be an absurd word-breaking contradiction.
So when Jesus calls himself " the door" I'm supposed to believe he is made from wood and has hinges? Something can be literally true but illustrated by a metaphor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,736
4,737
59
Mississippi
✟251,747.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The Bible is to be read and taken literal
When The Plain Sense of Scripture Makes Common Sense, Seek no Other Sense; Therefore, Take Every Word at its Primary, Ordinary, Usual, Literal Meaning Unless the Facts of the Immediate Context, Studied in the Light of Related Passages and Axiomatic and Fundamental Truths Indicate Clearly Otherwise.
Dr David L. Cooper
 
  • Winner
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,606
15,761
Colorado
✟433,253.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
So when Jesus calls himself " the door" I'm supposed to believe he is made from wood and has hinges?....
Thats^^^ what poll option one proposes:
"The Bible is the actual Word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."
Did you vote poll option one?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,401
5,102
New Jersey
✟336,208.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Not everything in the Bible is literal. Some is meant to be metaphorical. It's still literally true, however.

What do you mean by "literally true" here? What do you mean when you say a metaphor is literally true?

The Bible is to be read and taken literal
When The Plain Sense of Scripture Makes Common Sense, Seek no Other Sense; Therefore, Take Every Word at its Primary, Ordinary, Usual, Literal Meaning Unless the Facts of the Immediate Context, Studied in the Light of Related Passages and Axiomatic and Fundamental Truths Indicate Clearly Otherwise.
Dr David L. Cooper

Okay, but what if the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly that a sentence or story is a metaphor? Are you then okay with interpreting it as a metaphor instead of as a literal assertion?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

jacks

Er Victus
Site Supporter
Jun 29, 2010
3,809
3,063
Northwest US
✟675,511.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
For me personally, however a Christian views the bible is pretty much a non-issue. I have friends that think it is the literal word of god and those who just consider it mere moral precepts. It doesn't seem to really affect how the act as Christians and doesn't affect their belief that Jesus is their savior. Though it does give Christians something else to argue about...;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What do you mean by "literally true" here? What do you mean when you say a metaphor is literally true?
I'm saying what the metaphor illustrates is true. This makes up a large percent of Jesus' teaching. He uses metaphors to teach truth.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: PloverWing
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,401
5,102
New Jersey
✟336,208.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm saying what the metaphor illustrates is true. This makes up a large percent of Jesus' teaching. He uses metaphors to teach truth.

I agree with the principle here: Jesus used metaphors to teach truth.

Where we seem to differ is that I don't like using the term "literally true" if one is trying to say "metaphorically true" or "figuratively true". Is the word "literally" being used for emphasis, perhaps, instead of being used for its (ahem) literal meaning? Perhaps "genuinely true" would be a better way of saying it, if what one means is "it's really true and really important".
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,736
4,737
59
Mississippi
✟251,747.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
What do you mean by "literally true" here? What do you mean when you say a metaphor is literally true?



Okay, but what if the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly that a sentence or story is a metaphor? Are you then okay with interpreting it as a metaphor instead of as a literal assertion?

If The Bible would state this verse or part of scripture is a metaphor, then yes. But not some person declaring that The Bible is saying that, then no.

Examples:
This passage Paul speaks to this being symbolic of the two covenants freewoman representing the Jerusalem above through the promise and bondwomen representing Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now.
What Paul is not saying though is that these accounts are symbolic from The Tanakh. Paul actually believed in a historical real living Abraham, Sarah and Hagar from The Tanakh.

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written:

“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

Another Example:
Nothing from The Bible states this is a metaphor and did not happen exactly the way it is recorded in The Tanakh. People (even people who say they believe in a literal Bible reading) do not take this as a literal account. Not because of anything The Bible states, but they do not take it literal. Simply because of the lies of science, that is the only reason.


Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon;
And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge
Upon their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: PloverWing
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If The Bible would state this verse or part of scripture is a metaphor, then yes. But not some person declaring that The Bible is saying that, then no.

Examples:
This passage Paul speaks to this being symbolic of the two covenants freewoman representing the Jerusalem above through the promise and bondwomen representing Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now.
What Paul is not saying though is that these accounts are symbolic from The Tanakh. Paul actually believed in a historical real living Abraham, Sarah and Hagar from The Tanakh.

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written:

“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

Another Example:
Nothing from The Bible states this is a metaphor and did not happen exactly the way it is recorded in The Tanakh. People (even people who say they believe in a literal Bible reading) do not take this as a literal account. Not because of anything The Bible states, but they do not take it literal. Simply because of the lies of science, that is the only reason.


Then Joshua spoke to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon;
And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”
So the sun stood still,
And the moon stopped,
Till the people had revenge
Upon their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. And there has been no day like that, before it or after it, that the Lord heeded the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.
The sun did stand still from the perspective of a person on earth. That means it literally happened. Of course it was actually not the sun, but that's splitting hairs.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,606
15,761
Colorado
✟433,253.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The sun did stand still from the perspective of a person on earth. That means it literally happened. Of course it was actually not the sun, but that's splitting hairs.
The literal meaning says it was the sun.
 
Upvote 0

d taylor

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2018
10,736
4,737
59
Mississippi
✟251,747.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The sun did stand still from the perspective of a person on earth. That means it literally happened. Of course it was actually not the sun, but that's splitting hairs.

Actually it is more than splitting hairs. You believe in a completely different creation, than the one literally described in The Bible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
2,545
4,305
50
Florida
✟244,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The sun did stand still from the perspective of a person on earth. That means it literally happened. Of course it was actually not the sun, but that's splitting hairs.

Actually it is more than splitting hairs. You believe in a completely different creation, than the one literally described in The Bible.

And here we go! This should be entertaining. Lemme get some popcorn while you guys work out between each other which of you is right and, more importantly, how you determine that.
 
Upvote 0