s/o: Bible Poll

[MamaSheep]

I'm not at all sure it's wise to post a poll like this, but another thread has me wondering how this shakes out around here. I'm going to risk posting it and count on the courtesy and maturity of the posters here not to let the discussion get disrespectful or out of hand.

 

The poll allows only a limited number of characters per option, and I'm thinking a little bit more explanation might be helpful, so I'm going to write out the options here and then abridge them for the poll options. I'm sure I'll miss somebody's point of view, but I want to use all 10 available slots for actual answers so there's not going to be an "other". Sorry. But feel free to express your "other" point of view here. I'm not trying to cut people out, just trying to offer a good selection of options. So here goes:

 

 

1. The Bible is ancient literature that should be discarded as superstitious and obsolete. It's dangerous to society for people to use it as a guide for modern living.
   
2. The Bible is useful as an archaeological relic that gives historical information about how an ancient people thought and behaved. It's just not relevant in the modern world.
   
3. The Bible is a culturally significant collection of ancient myths and fables that teach valuable life lessons but were never intended to be understood as literal history--like Aesop.
   
4. The Bible is a repository of man's wisdom over several centuries. We can glean from it many useful insights that can help us live a happy and productive life.
   
5. The Bible is a compilation that contains some ideas that were revealed to man by God, along with useful human philosophical insights and interesting historical records.
   
6. The Bible is mostly revealed truth from God, but does contain some sections that are just historical information or man-made wisdom literature.
   
7. The Bible is entirely inspired by God, but the writers used their own words to convey God's message. Much of it is figurative, metaphorical language and not intended to be read as literal.
   
8. The Bible is entirely inspired by God, but the writers used their own words to convey God's message. Every word in the Bible should be read for its exact literal meaning.
   
9. The Bible was dictated by God, word by word, to men who acted as scribes and copied down exactly what God said. Some of what is in it is metaphorical or literary in nature.
   
10. The Bible was dictated word by word by God, and every word in it is intended to be read for its exact literal meaning.
    

 

[kalanamak]

You know, polls like this make monkeys out of some of us. ;)

[LittleIzumi]

The Bible is mostly revealed truth from God, but does contain some sections that are just historical information or man-made wisdom literature.

 

 

 

Bring it on! :lol:

 

(Starts counting down the minutes until the thread is locked. It's got the vibe.)

[Embassy]

This was the closest to my viewpoint:

 

The Bible was dictated by God, word by word, to men who acted as scribes and copied down exactly what God said. Some of what is in it is metaphorical or literary in nature.

[MamaSheep]

You know, polls like this make monkeys out of some of us. ;)

 

Bring it on! :lol:

 

(Starts counting down the minutes until the thread is locked. It's got the vibe.)

 

That really isn't my intent. I was curious and really do hope to get sort of an overview of opinion without antagonistic quarreling. I know it's probably a foolish hope, but I guess hope springs eternal.

[Tarreymere]

Wow, not locked yet.......(watching the clock tick)

[Caitilin]

This one gets my vote:

The Bible is entirely inspired by God, but the writers used their own words to convey God's message. Much of it is figurative, metaphorical language and not intended to be read as literal.

:001_smile:

[momma aimee]

Wow, not locked yet.......(watching the clock tick)

:lol:

 

see we can all play nice

[MamaSheep]

:lol:

 

see we can all play nice

 

I love you. :grouphug:

[momma aimee]

no group of people is ever going to totally bvelieve / agree the same ... but we can respect and learn from each other -- and if we come to an issue we can't =- then we are all old enough to just valk away

[MamaSheep]

no group of people is ever going to totally bvelieve / agree the same ... but we can respect and learn from each other -- and if we come to an issue we can't =- then we are all old enough to just valk away

 

I love you too.

 

 

Sometimes curiosity really IS just curiosity, and not an invitation to a bout of verbal warfare.

[Denise in Florida]

It put 'mostly revealed truth' I do believe that the Bible tells us about God relationship with man.

 

Many of the Old Testament books and some of the New Testament Books also tell historical facts. There are also some books which seem like literature/poetry such as Song of Solomon and Job. Calling them literary does not take away that fact that they contain meaning and important messages.

[happyhomemaker25]

I love you too.

 

 

Sometimes curiosity really IS just curiosity, and not an invitation to a bout of verbal warfare.

 

:iagree:

[happyhomemaker25]

I take as much of the Bible literally as I can. I believe it is the inspired word of God dictated to men.

[Audrey]

The second option is closest to what I would choose.

[HRAAB]

Ideas entirely from God, writers used own words. Has some parts that are figurative, not literal.

 

That's the closest to my beliefs.

[Dana]

Even if you view the Bible as completely literal, how do you handle the fact of translations?

 

That's what I just DO NOT GET about literalism.

 

My folks are both ministers (ELCA). They both had to learn Greek to read the New Testament and my mom has a study Bible that has four side by side translations.

 

For me, this is just a huge disconnect.

[gaillardia]

Has some ideas that came from God, mixed in with a lot of philosophy and history, that fits some of what I believe, but not completely.

I thought I could click on other options!!!

I also would have chosen a few of the other statements that came after that one.

The Bible has gone through how many translations?

I just know how I feel when I read it with real intent. Some of it, eh, not so much.

I tried to copy and paste but it won't let me.

[Rosie_0801]

 

3. The Bible is a culturally significant collection of ancient myths and fables that teach valuable life lessons but were never intended to be understood as literal history--like Aesop.

 

 

 

I voted for this one, but really I think some parts were intended to be understood as literal history and were inserted to add legitimacy. That technique, of course, has a long and glorious history...

 

Rosie

[TKDmom]

I love these discussions. Popcorn anyone?

 

:lurk5:

[FaithManor]

Where is my carmel corn? It would make a nice treat while this plays. :D

 

I voted. But, I'm not revealing what I voted! How's that for cantankerous? It's been a foul day and so I'm just going to avoid discussions unless they involve chocolate! :001_smile:

 

Faith

[MamaSheep]

To be honest, I had kind of a hard time picking myself. I was trying to aim for a sort of continuum of generalized ideas I've heard expressed about it over the years, but I know that for many of us it's a bit more complex than is easily broken down into poll options.

 

For my part, I think parts of it are definitely historical or literary in nature. I do think God instructed man to include things like the history and census figures and things like that in the religious records, but I don't think he dictated them word for word--what would be the point of telling the Israelites to count the people, and then telling them what numbers they should write down for the head count, for example? So those sorts of bits I think were men writing in their own words, but instructed by God to do so.

 

Other bits I think are descriptions of visions sent by God, in which case I think God sent the visions, but allowed men to write their own descriptions of what they saw and heard and otherwise experienced, probably with the guidance of the Spirit to help bring things clearly to their minds and help them describe things adequately for the intended purpose.

 

In other bits, I think God pretty much told the writer what to put down, especially where it says things like, "thus saith the Lord" and proceeds to quote him. (But in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or whatever, of course).

 

And I'm afraid I'm rather of the opinion that the Song of Solomon is literature, even though it has references to God. I don't see it as revelation.

 

I also think that some bits are clearly metaphorical (ex: I am the vine, you are the branches), and I think some parts, like the parables, are intended as instructive stories--I don't think the story of the good Samaritan is literal history. And some parts are clearly symbolic in nature, like some of the imagery in Revelation, and we are meant to understand the symbols to represent nuanced ideas rather than the literal objects themselves. I think that generally it's pretty easy to tell from the context whether something is intended as literal or symbolic/metaphorical. (Although I'm certain there are people who would disagree with me as to which is which. I'm ok with that, I figure God will sort it all out.)

 

And I think some parts fall somewhere between something I'd think of as obviously revelation, and something I'd consider more along the lines of literature--like the Psalms; I think the Psalms were "inspired" by God--that God influenced the authors heavily, and probably the Spirit guided many of the sentiments expressed, but that David etc. were the actual "authors" of the poetry.

 

Overall, though, I think the themes and ideas included are from God, whether the actual wording is divinely dictated or not (and I think some parts are God's actual words).

 

The option I voted was: "Ideas entirely from God, writers used own words. Has some parts that are figurative, not literal." But I could probably have also picked, "Mostly revealed truth from God, but has a few sections that are just historical or literary." I'm somewhere in that general vicinity. Again, I knew the options I gave would probably not be ideal descriptions for anyone, but I was sort of aiming for a continuum we could find something sort of "close enough for this discussion" on.

[Mergath]

Well, I voted for three. But...

 

I wish we could vote separately for the Old and New Testaments.

 

If I could, I'd vote 1 for the old, 3 for the new.

[MamaSheep]

Even if you view the Bible as completely literal, how do you handle the fact of translations?

 

That's what I just DO NOT GET about literalism.

 

My folks are both ministers (ELCA). They both had to learn Greek to read the New Testament and my mom has a study Bible that has four side by side translations.

 

For me, this is just a huge disconnect.

 

Yeah, I think translations are kind of a whole other discussion. Maybe for the purposes of this little chat we could think about the Bible in the original languages as they were originally written.

 

 

Where is my carmel corn? It would make a nice treat while this plays. :D

 

I voted. But, I'm not revealing what I voted! How's that for cantankerous? It's been a foul day and so I'm just going to avoid discussions unless they involve chocolate! :001_smile:

 

Faith

 

That sounds fair to me.

 

And I love caramel corn.

[TKDmom]

Where is my carmel corn? It would make a nice treat while this plays. :D

 

I voted. But, I'm not revealing what I voted! How's that for cantankerous? It's been a foul day and so I'm just going to avoid discussions unless they involve chocolate! :001_smile:

 

Faith

 

 

Ooh, you know what's even better? The triple chocolate popcorn that the Boy Scouts sell. Mmmmm. You can hardly taste the popcorn under all that sweet, gooey goodness.

[LittleIzumi]

No one is allowed to mention chocolate or peanut butter while I'm avoiding them for The Love's food allergies. :tongue_smilie:

[Veritaserum]

I voted for this one:

 

"Has some ideas that really came from God, mixed in with a lot of human philosophy and history."

 

A lot of the Old Testament just doesn't strike me as divinely inspired (killing people so you can take their land, for example). Parts of the Old Testament, like Isaiah, do feel divinely-directed/inspired. The New Testament resonates much more clearly as coming from God, but it still has things that reflect the culture of the time (submissive wives, for example).

[OrganicAnn]

I would have picked a different answer for the OT and the NT, but since you don't break it out I'll have to try to pick something in the middle (but it won't accurately reflect my beliefs).

[TrixieB]

Ooh, you know what's even better? The triple chocolate popcorn that the Boy Scouts sell. Mmmmm. You can hardly taste the popcorn under all that sweet, gooey goodness.

Costco's samples on Sunday included Chocolate Poppycock... just in case the craving strikes when it's not Boy Scout popcorn season, now you know where to get some chocolate popcorn. :D

[angela in ohio]

I voted the 7th one, but then I read that you put "much" in the longer explanation, and I don't agree with that, so I am somewhere between 7 and 8. I think the Bible is composed of many different types of literature, and some are historical records, some are poetry, etc., and each of those is interpreted differently based on the type of literature it is. Some of those types are not to be read literally, but I wouldn't say "much."

[dirty ethel rackham]

Ideas entirely from God, writers used own words. Has some parts that are figurative, not literal.

 

That's the closest to my beliefs.

:iagree: I also believe that some parts are historical and literary, but still ideas from God and part of the story he wanted told.

[anabelneri]

I voted for "mostly revealed" and I also could've chosen the next one (in the "entirely by God" section), but like others, my view is more nuanced (complicated?) than that.

 

My view of the Bible is that it is a text/history written down by people who have had an experience of God and following God and wish desperately to record that experience as best they can. Because the experience of God is often difficult to put into words, and because people are not perfect, the text is also not perfect. And yet when we humans open up to God we can come very close to perfection; thus the Bible is divinely-inspired. But it is always written through the lens of the writer's culture and experience, and that needs to be taken into consideration when reading Scripture.

 

God spoke the Word and the universe was created. Jesus is the Word. How can the Word, such a complex and amazing gift, as complicated as a human and as perfect as God, be written down? But how can we, being humans in the image of God who spoke, the family of Jesus who is the Word, not try to write down our experience to the best of our ability? Of course we must try!

 

I also tend to believe (hope? pray?) that the translators of the various translations that I use were people trying their best to follow God. I have not studied Biblical Greek or Hebrew, but that would certainly be the ideal for me.

 

I've lived through the whole list of choices, though, to some degree. I grew up not really knowing anything about the Bible and not knowing why I should. It just made people talk oddly (I sometimes watched the preachers on TV out of horrid fascination). At another time in my life I was good friends with someone who was Pentecostal and tried to follow the Bible literally (as interpreted by her pastor), and I seriously considered going down that road too. So please don't take my above statements as anything other than me stating my own beliefs with enthusiasm... I don't mean to step on others' toes of belief or disbelief.

 

:)

[KungFuPanda]

All of the above . . . Depending on what part we're talking about :-)

[ErinE]

I may get dinged for posting this, but I purchased an archaeological bible a few years ago, which had fantastic information on the history of the Bible. According to this book, the bible, as we know it, was compiled from many different sources, not all of which agreed with each other. Often times, committees came together to determine the "correct" version. Certain testaments have been excluded from the most popular bibles. I struggle with the bible as literal truth, because it seems mind boggling that in thousands of years of human copywork and translation, no errors were made. According to this historical bible, we probably know more now about the Bible than at any other time in history, simply because we have better tools to pull together multiple sources. I've read several different versions of the bible and I found this version the most interesting.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I may get dinged for posting this, but I purchased an archaeological bible a few years ago, which had fantastic information on the history of the Bible. According to this book, the bible, as we know it, was compiled from many different sources, not all of which agreed with each other. Often times, committees came together to determine the "correct" version. Certain testaments have been excluded from the most popular bibles. I struggle with the bible as literal truth, because it seems mind boggling that in thousands of years of human copywork and translation, no errors were made. According to this historical bible, we probably know more now about the Bible than at any other time in history, simply because we have better tools to pull together multiple sources. I've read several different versions of the bible and I found this version the most interesting.

 

Sounds fascinating. I'll have to keep my eye out for this one.

[ElaineJ]

I think I need to vote for that obligatory "other" that didn't make it into this poll. ;) I don't believe that God "dictated" the Bible, meaning that He told the authors exactly what to write and they just copied down. They used their own words. At the same time, I do believe that they were inspired by God and that every word included in the original language is valuable and worthy of study and consideration. I think some of the prophecies, for example, seem to have multiple layers of meaning of which the original writers were not aware. They wrote them in their own words and with specific intentions, but the inspired end result supercedes their intentions. Does that make sense? I also can't answer the "literal" vs. "metaphorical" as stated because I think different parts of the Bible are to be interpreted differently depending on genre, and that many parts which are literal are metaphorical as well. (It is that multiple layers of meaning thing again.) I guess I see God as a Poet, and her writes his poetry into reality. so I don't see this as an either/ or proposition.

 

Elaine

[Ester Maria]

I am honestly afraid to post a reply I composed. :lol:

 

There are some of us whose heresies are so profound that we NEED that "other" option. :tongue_smilie:

[MamaSheep]

I think I need to vote for that obligatory "other" that didn't make it into this poll. ;) I don't believe that God "dictated" the Bible, meaning that He told the authors exactly what to write and they just copied down. They used their own words. At the same time, I do believe that they were inspired by God and that every word included in the original language is valuable and worthy of study and consideration. I think some of the prophecies, for example, seem to have multiple layers of meaning of which the original writers were not aware. They wrote them in their own words and with specific intentions, but the inspired end result supercedes their intentions. Does that make sense? I also can't answer the "literal" vs. "metaphorical" as stated because I think different parts of the Bible are to be interpreted differently depending on genre, and that many parts which are literal are metaphorical as well. (It is that multiple layers of meaning thing again.) I guess I see God as a Poet, and her writes his poetry into reality. so I don't see this as an either/ or proposition.

 

Elaine

 

Makes sense to me. And I agree about the layers. I fully acknowledge that my options are not really adequate to the project. They were what I came up with on a whim at short notice is all.

 

I am honestly afraid to post a reply I composed. :lol:

 

There are some of us whose heresies are so profound that we NEED that "other" option. :tongue_smilie:

ROFL!! This might be my favorite response of all. I can definitely understand your hesitation. Might you be willing to PM me the reply you composed? You have definitely piqued my curiosity.

Edited November 23, 2011 by MamaSheep

[leeannpal]

I may get dinged for posting this, but I purchased an archaeological bible a few years ago, which had fantastic information on the history of the Bible. According to this book, the bible, as we know it, was compiled from many different sources, not all of which agreed with each other. Often times, committees came together to determine the "correct" version. Certain testaments have been excluded from the most popular bibles. I struggle with the bible as literal truth, because it seems mind boggling that in thousands of years of human copywork and translation, no errors were made. According to this historical bible, we probably know more now about the Bible than at any other time in history, simply because we have better tools to pull together multiple sources. I've read several different versions of the bible and I found this version the most interesting.

 

Wow! I want that Bible!

 

Dh is a seminary student. He actually has studied Greek and Roman in order to read and understand in the original languages. One thing that and I both have trouble understanding is how important it is to understand the cultures of the people who wrote the books of the Bible. An archaeological Bible would really help, I'm sure.

[MamaSheep]

Thanks for indulging me everyone, and especially thanks for not turning this into an ugly row. I'm always impressed by the graciousness of the ladies on this board regardless of the perspective they bring to the table. :)

[lulubelle]

I choose 3rd, 4th 5th 6th and 7th option! It is a little of all those things to me.

[lionfamily1999]

I take it all to be literally God's word, however there are different styles of writing employed and have to be understand as such. I don't believe Solomon's wife really had the eyes of a deer, for instance. I don't believe that God literally takes us beside literal still waters or that there is a specific place that is the valley of the shadow of death. These things are symbolic, still waters are safety and peace, the valley of the shadow of death is an emotional/spiritual place.

[AK_Mom4]

I needed an "OTHER" option on this one.... Sorry!

[Susan in TN]

I take it all to be literally God's word, however there are different styles of writing employed and have to be understand as such. I don't believe Solomon's wife really had the eyes of a deer, for instance. I don't believe that God literally takes us beside literal still waters or that there is a specific place that is the valley of the shadow of death. These things are symbolic, still waters are safety and peace, the valley of the shadow of death is an emotional/spiritual place.

 

:iagree: