Liberty News Forum
Political News Forum - Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics. Not for wimps!
Political Opinion Page - Recent Posts - LNF Forums LNF in the Age of Empowerment! Algorithm free!
Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Entertainment - Sports Forum
Military - A1 News Page - Computers Tech - Financial News - Bunker - Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll
The House - Off the Wall News - Page 2 - Rasmussen Reports Polls - Chat Room
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HereChristian Forum › George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally True
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2]  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally True (Read 3,578 times)
Double Oh FoB
Ex Member


Re: George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally T
Reply #10 - Dec 11th, 2008 at 1:30am
Print Post  
Quote:
"I think you can have both," Mr Bush, who leaves office January 20, told ABC television, adding "You're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president."

But "evolution is an interesting subject. I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life," said the president, an outspoken Christian who often invokes God in his speeches.

"I think that God created the Earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution," he told ABC television.

Asked whether the Bible was literally true, Mr Bush replied: "Probably not. No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it."

"The important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" he said.


Which goes along perfectly with what most of us believe. Take creation. God created the earth in 7 days, so we are told. However, who's time frame are the writers referencing? What was/is a day to God could be a millennium to us. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights is another example. In Hebrew that translates literally into something close to "a long fu**ing time" and is used by many to describe an unknown length of time.
The point being, the Bible is God's word, but translated by man, and man is prone to errors in judgment. Therefore, the principles are sound, but the exact timeframes of a lot of things are open to interpretation.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
PoliMod
LNF Moderator
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Please follow the rules!

Posts: 699
Joined: Nov 30th, 2005
Re: George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally T
Reply #11 - Dec 11th, 2008 at 1:31am
Print Post  
Since this thread has some obvious religious overtones, I'm moving it over to the Christian Forum.


PoliMod
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lefty Loosey
LNF House Leader
****
Offline


Posts: 9,670
Joined: Sep 2nd, 2004
Re: George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally T
Reply #12 - Dec 11th, 2008 at 10:00am
Print Post  
Quote:
I don't think anyone really believes everything in the Bible is literally true. áI wonder what the context of the statement was.


Actually, there's quite a few denominations that believe that. This is an old poll, but it shows the amount. Keep in mind that this wasn't weighed for Christians, so the percentage within Christianity that believes in a literal, word for word interpretation is actually about 33% higher.

Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ▒ 3.

           .

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

           .

    Actual
Word of God Inspired
Word of God Fables Unsure   
    % % % %   
  5/8-11/06 28 49 19 3   
  5/2-5/05 32 47 18 3   
  11/04 34 48 15 3   
  12/02 30 52 15 3   
  2/01 27 49 20 4   
  6/98 33 47 17 3   
  7-8/80 40 45 10 6   
  8/76 38 45 13 5

http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm


Now, if you drilled down into what the 28% really believe, I think you'd find that it's a smaller number that think it's literally true throughout. I don't think that is very important though, because the fact that they view themselves as believing it's literally true word for word is what counts. When that happens, they cannot be persuaded that man's fingerprints have been in the Bible throughout its history, and that the very real changes in Christian teachings throughout history occurred.

In fact, when someone like myself points out that there is a historical context to the Bible that must be included in studies, and that Christianity has always been dynamic and changing based on the influence of men, I'm considered heretical. The most obvious example is homosexuality, in which (IMO) there has been a non-stop decontextualizing of the verses from the beginnings of the church onward, but pointing that out always gets you labelled a "fake" Christian.
  

&&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mercy For All
LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Generally, generalizations
are always false.

Posts: 43,785
Joined: Aug 7th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally T
Reply #13 - Dec 11th, 2008 at 12:56pm
Print Post  
Actually, regardless of the polls, nobody really takes everything in the Bible literally.  To do so, you would have to believe that God is made of stone...and with wings nonetheless!
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Lefty Loosey
LNF House Leader
****
Offline


Posts: 9,670
Joined: Sep 2nd, 2004
Re: George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally T
Reply #14 - Dec 11th, 2008 at 4:03pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Actually, regardless of the polls, nobody really takes everything in the Bible literally. áTo do so, you would have to believe that God is made of stone...and with wings nonetheless!


I know. But you're underestimating how strong unformed opinions are. If you sat someone who said "yes" to the poll question and asked them things directly from the Bible, you'd find out that they don't really think it's literal after all. But...and this is what I'm trying to get at...it would also be when they found out that they don't really think it's literal after all.

That's what happens when you're taught to decontextualize. You learn to memorize passages and their meanings, but you don't have take the time to link up your thoughts into a big picture, because you don't know the context of why the words were said, just what the actual passages state. IMO, it comes down to the fact that Evangelism and theology tend to butt heads, and there's been a fairly longterm move towards Evangelism in US churches.
  

&&
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Low_pockets
Ex Member


Re: George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally T
Reply #15 - Dec 13th, 2008 at 2:53pm
Print Post  
I have to agree wih What Josh Mc Dowell says.Too many people take one verse to back up thier argument and back and forth it goes.
He also says many people say look at the contradictions in the bible.He says they say look at them but they can't show you any.
From his book,Answers to tough questions people ask about the christian faith.
Another good book of his.Evidence that demands a verdict.
HE is a Harverd law professor and studied the bible and looking at the evidence as one would in a court of law.He also states the evidence of the resurrection has never broken down in a court of law.
He is an interesting person to study.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
jeff
Ex Member


Re: George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally T
Reply #16 - Dec 13th, 2008 at 11:19pm
Print Post  
Quote:
Now, if you drilled down into what the 28% really believe, I think you'd find that it's a smaller number that think it's literally true throughout. I don't think that is very important though, because the fact that they view themselves as believing it's literally true word for word is what counts. When that happens, they cannot be persuaded that man's fingerprints have been in the Bible throughout its history, and that the very real changes in Christian teachings throughout history occurred.

i don't think too many people do believe that "man's fingerprints have been in the Bible throughout history" if by that you mean there have been dramatic or even undramatic changes to the text.  i think the principle term that is in question is the term literal.  if you accept that the Bible is to be understood, word for word, literally then you eliminate concepts and doctrines from the Bible that are supported by figurative language - the opposite of literal language.

Quote:
In fact, when someone like myself points out that there is a historical context to the Bible that must be included in studies, and that Christianity has always been dynamic and changing based on the influence of men, I'm considered heretical. The most obvious example is homosexuality, in which (IMO) there has been a non-stop decontextualizing of the verses from the beginnings of the church onward, but pointing that out always gets you labelled a "fake" Christian.

there are historical contexts that have to be taken into account, but i'm not convinced that homosexuality is one that is qualified by that context, either in the old or new testaments.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Triple_R
LNF Representative
LNF Bunker
***
Offline

I Love Liberty News Forum!

Posts: 1,322
Joined: Mar 30th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally T
Reply #17 - Dec 14th, 2008 at 8:52pm
Print Post  
Parts of the Bible are clearly symbolic - the Bible itself will often point out if its using symbolism (the Book of Revelations is filled with many verses like this).

Nobody questions that - and this is what I think MFA refers to.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fair-minded know it all
LNF Party Leader
***
Offline

fair-minded conservative
leaning independent

Posts: 4,851
Joined: Feb 17th, 2008
Gender: Male
Re: George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally T
Reply #18 - Dec 15th, 2008 at 6:41am
Print Post  
I believe the Bible is 100% true. It uses different genres of literature such as poetry,
parables, symbolism etc. These genres are obvious to the text such as revelation.
Some people pick and choose which texts to take literally and create weird doctrines,
such as the rapture etc.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mercy For All
LNF Moderator
The Writer's Croft
LNF Bunker
*****
Offline

Generally, generalizations
are always false.

Posts: 43,785
Joined: Aug 7th, 2004
Gender: Male
Re: George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally T
Reply #19 - Dec 15th, 2008 at 4:52pm
Print Post  
Quote:
I believe the Bible is 100% true. It uses different genres of literature such as poetry,
parables, symbolism etc. These genres are obvious to the text such as revelation.


Well said.

Quote:
Some people pick and choose which texts to take literally and create weird doctrines,
such as the rapture etc.


Interpretation is a human process.
  

Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 
Send TopicPrint
 
Liberty News ForumLNF Forums HereChristian Forum › George W. Bush: Bible Probably Not Literally True

LNF Home - Political Opinion Page
LNF Forums

Christian Forum - Religion Forum - Sports Forum - Entertainment - House
Military, History - Cooking and Crafts - Creative Writing
Off the Wall News - Science Forum - Tech Gadgets - Financial News - Humor
Bunker - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Chat Room





Drudge Report - News Max - Rush Limbaugh - FrontpageMag
Advertise on the LNF - Twitter LNF - LNF Archive - LNF News
LNF Blog
News and Political Links
Political Blogs
Add your website or blog
Political Columnists
Political Humor
A1 News Page
David Limbaugh
Political Frog
Conservatives Directory
President Trump Approval Poll
Presidential Party Election Poll
News forum posting, privacy policy and member rules