View Poll Results: Is the Bible literal of not?
- 46. You may not vote on this poll
Yes, spilling even grass seed is bad
No, aside from God birthin Jesus without need for the nasty, it's broad lessons and such
Thread: The Bible: literal or no?
10/25/2005 12:45pm, #51Originally Posted by feedback
10/25/2005 12:59pm, #52
I'm agnostic. I doubt all of it. There is not a poll option for that.
10/25/2005 1:23pm, #53
Originally Posted by garbanzobean
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
10/25/2005 1:43pm, #54Originally Posted by Mr_Mantis
10/25/2005 1:44pm, #55
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- San Jose, CA
- Brazilian Jiu-jitsu Girl
There is no scientific evidence that much of any of it is literal, with the exceptions of some actual Roman emperors mentioned in the new testament and use of real places. The whole creation thing is rubbish.
10/25/2005 1:57pm, #56Originally Posted by garbanzobean"You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."
10/25/2005 4:10pm, #57Originally Posted by Grashnak
10/25/2005 5:15pm, #58Originally Posted by loki09789
10/25/2005 8:21pm, #59Originally Posted by MrMcFu
Ooops... heh heh, a little hard to tell with fundies some time.... it coulda been true! Sorry about that. :redface:
10/25/2005 8:55pm, #60
I'll step up and admit I voted for literal. (And a hearty "**** You" to Feedback and everyone else that made comments like him. I mean that. **** all y'all.) In truth, though, I voted that as it more closely matches my beliefs than the other choice. It is far too simplistic to say (even as a believer) that the Bible is literal. It has parable, poetry, prophetic imagery, and metaphor as well as history, and even that is only "literal" in the context of the times and culture in which it was written.
As an aside, this thread displays the usual lack of understanding about Christianity, textual criticism of the Bible and Biblicla history that appears in religion threads on bullshido. For example...The virgin birth was probably a translation mistake.