Gallup Poll: Better Than 1 in 4 Americans Believe the Bible is the 'Actual Word of God'

Editor and Publisher ^ | May 22, 2006 | Gallup Poll

[Hebrews 11:6]

"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." John 1:18

"No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father." John 6:46

"'If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.' Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.' Jesus answered: 'Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?'" John 14:7-9

[Hebrews 11:6]

Such a supposition, if seriously advanced, does violence to both the letter and spirit not only of Scripture but also to the current scientific consensus, even among evolutionists. Therefore, I conclude that you mean only to provoke or make sport of me.

I'm not playing, thanks.

[Hebrews 11:6]

It's worth considering, don't you think?

[Hebrews 11:6]

Thanks--I reread it last week. I'm moving through the Psalms just now.

[Chasaway]

To me, that is absolutely one of the most beautiful, powerful and personally meaningful Psalms.

The promises made are magnificent and indescribably reassuring.

[JohnnyZ]

Therefore, I conclude that you mean only to provoke or make sport of me.

Er .... some would call it a 'joke' (soft 'j'), and it was not at your expense. I find your hostile reaction quite odd.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Er .... some would call it a 'joke' (soft 'j'), and it was not at your expense. I find your hostile reaction quite odd.

Yours is one of the most bizarre set of posts I've ever encountered on FR. You admit now it was a 'joke,' which is what I speculated. To say that it was not at my expense is nonsense, since you directed it to me. Now you claim I am "hostile," oddly.

I was merely wary of you and your intentions, and so I told you I'm not interested in interacting with you. That decision's soundness certainly is validated by your latest post.

I wish you the very best, in every way--just not at my expense.

[italianquaker]

yes it is

[blue-duncan]

"Except that your 28% dont believe in symbolism or context."

They were confused by the question. Should have used examples. My elderly sister would probably gone with the literalists but if you asked her does the Bible use metaphor, similes, allegories and symbol, she would say "of course" look at Revelation or Song of Solomon.

[Iscool]

ok so when the bible clearly states that in early times God had many sons that would mate with daughetrs of humans and they were they would produce angelic halfbreeds. when I was pretty sure Gospels state that God only had one son?? I could go on about the many gods referenced in the old testament if you want?

The Bible states Jesus was the only 'begotten' Son...Does this imply there were other sons that were not begotten??? Are the created angels sons of God???

Don't worry so much about understanding...The Holy Spirit will take care of that...The problem is belief...Just believe what you read...

[JohnnyZ]

To say that it was not at my expense is nonsense, since you directed it to me.

Yo egomaniac. It's not all about you. I made a joke quoting a quote from your post. Who could guess you were a humorless sop? You're a new kind of clueless in my experience.

[BamaFan]

I'm not offended. I do think literalists are destroying the Christian faith. I would like to know if you think Maccabbees deserves to be canonized or not, but I'd guess you're a protestant and do not think so. If so, I'd have to violently disagree with your assessment that the books of Maccabbees are poorly translated, unreliable, or that councils responsible for canonizing books rejected them.

[Hebrews 11:6]

You wrote:
To: Hebrews 11:6

In one place the Bible refers to God as having wings and feathers. Clearly this, when read in context, was intended figuratively Oh really? Have you ever considered that humans were created in the image and likeness of God, with wings and feathers, in order to blend in with the unsuspecting avian descendents of the dinosaurs, and then evolved into our present form?

107 posted on 05/23/2006 3:54:44 PM PDT by JohnnyZ (Happy New Year! Breed like dogs!)

I responded, "To say that it was not at my expense is nonsense, since you directed it to me."

You then posted:
Yo egomaniac. It's not all about you...Who could guess you were a humorless sop? You're a new kind of clueless in my experience.

I have now made it perfectly clear twice that I would like you to leave me alone. This is my third request: LEAVE ME ALONE. If I am indeed a humorless egomaniac clueless sop as you declared, why would a rational nonbelligerent, if such you are, bother further with me?

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! It is certainly possible.

[JohnnyZ]

You really are obsessive.

[DocRock]

Bookmark

[MeanWestTexan]

I was driving out in the oil patch the other day and an radio preacher --- a firebreathing fundamentalist, if I ever heard one --- called such overly-literal interpretations "wooden."

He used the example of when Christ tells you not to invite your family or rich people over for dinner, only the poor ---- obviously, Christ wasn't talking about "no family reunions." He was talking about motivations and rewards.

Christ himself expressly says --- right after the parable of the seeds, which is the ONLY PARABLE EXPLAINED by Christ in the Bible --- that he intentionally spoke in parables, so that those not under the influence of the Holy Spirit would not understand.

Here (Mark 10):

"When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'[a]""

[ahayes]

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

Now that's a silly position. Either they misread the question or they're kind of ignorant about it. There are multiple passages in the Bible that are definitely not literal. Perhaps they should have restricted it to certain passages since what they're probably trying to get at is Creation.

[TheBlueMax]

Yes, I'm a Protestant, and no, I don't think Maccabees should be canonized in Scripture. My reasoning is not that I don't beleive in the accuracy of the translation, per se. I believe that the Councils established the fact of what is to be included in Scripture, therefore, my opinion is moot. I'm not a literalist, but I do believe in the inerrant Word of God. I clearly know that the Bible is both literal and figurative, and that not every passage can be taken literally. That being said, I believe God works through his chosen to establish His will, therefore what was canonized a long time ago is what I place my faith in. I hope I do not sound smug or condescending as it is not my wish to do so. I guess I trust God and his Word, and leave it at that.

[Tribune7]

That's sort of good news.