Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240838]Take the phrase: "John is an ox." If I were to tell you that these are literally the words of Sgman91, then you would probably believe that Sgman91 said them and that he meant to express some meaning through it. It might be metaphorical, talking about a super strong guy, or it might be literally talking about an ox named John. We can't tell based on the fact that they are literally the words of Sgman91. That just means I actually said them. If I were to tell you that this is to be taken literally, then you would, rightfully, think that it's talking about an ox named John. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] That's what it means to take something literally. It's just the meaning of the words and grammar.[/QUOTE] They believe the Bible is "literally the word of God". As in, the Bible contains the words that God decreed be in the Bible. Those words can be metaphorical. The insanity comes from the fact that they believe their god actually wrote the Bible.

[QUOTE=geel9;52240851]They believe the Bible is "literally the word of God". As in, the Bible contains the words that God decreed be in the Bible. Those words can be metaphorical. The insanity comes from the fact that they believe their god actually wrote the Bible.[/QUOTE] The OP's poll doesn't ask if the Bible is "literally the word of God." It doesn't say that. It, instead, asks whether the Bible should be "taken literally." Why do you all feel compelled to change the wording of the question? It's almost like the question isn't very good and you feel the need to make it more clear. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] Also, what do you mean when you say that people believe God actually wrote the Bible? Are you saying that they believe God picked up a pen and wrote down the words? I don't know of any Christian who believes that.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240867]The OP's poll doesn't ask if the Bible is "literally the word of God." It doesn't say that. It, instead, asks whether the Bible should be "taken literally." Why do you all feel compelled to change the wording of the question? It's almost like the question isn't very good and you feel the need to make it more clear. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] Also, what do you mean when you say that people believe God actually wrote the Bible? Are you saying that they believe God picked up a pen and wrote down the words? I don't know of any Christian who believes that.[/QUOTE] In the poll it says "Actual word of God, to be taken literally". I don't see how this isn't the same as "literally the word of God".

[QUOTE=aznz888;52240931]In the poll it says "Actual word of God, to be taken literally". I don't see how this isn't the same as "literally the word of God".[/QUOTE] As I showed in my previous post about "John is an ox," we can see how the phrases have very different meanings. To "take something literally," means to interpret it through a literalistic lense.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240949]As I showed in my previous post about "John is an ox," we can see how the phrases have very different meanings. To "take something literally," means to interpret it through a literalistic lense.[/QUOTE] should the bible be taken literally in the sense that you talk about how we ought to perceive "literal" ?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52241003]should the bible be taken literally in the sense that you talk about how we ought to perceive "literal" ?[/QUOTE] The entire Bible shouldn't be taken literally in any way. It is sometimes literal, it is sometimes figurative, it is sometimes being poetic, it is sometimes being historical, it is sometimes being allegorical, etc. etc. etc. The goal should be to perceive it in the way the author intended it to be perceived. If they intended it to be literal, then take it literally. If they intended it to be figurative, then take it figuratively. The doctrine of [I]tota scriptura [/I]is that the entire scripture contains God's truth. It says nothing about what form that truth takes. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] My point isn't that we ought to perceive literal in a certain way, but that the poll's usage of the word literal isn't an accurate representation of how any Christians actually take the Bible. It's a bad question and the results don't really tell me anything about people's theology around scripture. A person who gives the second answer, about the Bible being inspired by God, may mean the exact same thing as the person who answered that they take it literally, but they are using the words differently because the answers aren't clear.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240867] Also, what do you mean when you say that people believe God actually wrote the Bible? Are you saying that they believe God picked up a pen and wrote down the words? I don't know of any Christian who believes that.[/QUOTE] Obviously not? First of all, there's no reason to believe God exists, so it makes no sense to think he'd have picked up a pen and written down the words. It's possible for God to have written the Bible without actually having physically written it. If it's the "word of God" then clearly the words come from God, no?

[QUOTE=geel9;52241039]Obviously not? First of all, there's no reason to believe God exists, so it makes no sense to think he'd have picked up a pen and written down the words. It's possible for God to have written the Bible without actually having physically written it. If it's the "word of God" then clearly the words come from God, no?[/QUOTE] Generally, Christians mean that it is inspired by God when they say it's the "Word of God." They don't mean every single word was directly dictated by God or that God took over people's body so that they wrote the exact words that God wanted. The idea is that God inspired the authors with the ideas and concepts, but that the authors still wrote it in their own styles and used their own specific words. For example, the books of Romans is written by Paul in every sense of the word, but the ideas expressed in it were given to Paul by God. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] I say "generally" because most Christians don't have a clear and consistent view of their own theology.

I can only hope it declines further for other religious texts as well.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240768]Taking it "word for word" is called believing that it's inspired, not taking it literally. You guys keep trying to rephrase the question to make it more sensical, but that isn't what they did. They asked if the Bible was "literal," not if they took it word for word or if it was literally the word of God, or any other rephrasing of the question. If they wanted to actually ask useful questions that apply to real Christian theology, then they should have asked the following: 1) Do you believe that the Bible is the final authoritative source of all Christian doctrine. 2) Do you believe that the entire Bible is authoritative? These represent the two ideas of [I]sola scritura[/I] and [I]tota scriptura[/I], the actual theological positions of more hardline Christians.[/QUOTE] except they asked if it was "the actual word of god to be taken literally" not "if it should be taken literally" every time i read one of your posts it gets harder and harder not to assume you're trolling to be honest.

[QUOTE=elowin;52241501]except they asked if it was "the actual word of god to be taken literally" not "if it should be taken literally" every time i read one of your posts it gets harder and harder not to assume you're trolling to be honest.[/QUOTE] So "to be taken literally," doesn't mean "it should be taken literally?" What? It asked, "The actual word of God, to be taken literally." That means it is both the "actual word of God," and that it is "to be taken literally."

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240504]This is such a stupid question. No one takes the entire Bible literally because there are parts that are explicitly figurative. No one thinks people are literally sheep for example.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the poll doesn't mean there are people that take every sentence of every verse in the most literal meaning of what it says. Such as I'm sure those who take the bible literally still realize that the parables that Jesus teaches are just that, parables and allegory. My guess is that the poll means that they take majority of the bible, including verses that are explicitly not to be taken literally, as literal. [editline]17th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52240768]Taking it "word for word" is called believing that it's inspired, not taking it literally. You guys keep trying to rephrase the question to make it more sensical, but that isn't what they did. They asked if the Bible was "literal," not if they took it word for word or if it was literally the word of God, or any other rephrasing of the question. If they wanted to actually ask useful questions that apply to real Christian theology, then they should have asked the following: 1) Do you believe that the Bible is the final authoritative source of all Christian doctrine. 2) Do you believe that the entire Bible is authoritative? These represent the two ideas of [I]sola scritura[/I] and [I]tota scriptura[/I], the actual theological positions of more hardline Christians.[/QUOTE] Kind of a bias question because then the poll would be restricted to only Protestants and exclude Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52242638]Pretty sure the poll doesn't mean there are people that take every sentence of every verse in the most literal meaning of what it says. Such as I'm sure those who take the bible literally still realize that the parables that Jesus teaches are just that, parables and allegory. My guess is that the poll means that they take majority of the bible, including verses that are explicitly not to be taken literally, as literal.[/QUOTE] What you described seems to be exactly what the second answer stated: it is inspired by God, but not all to be taken literally. My contention is that the difference between the two is more based on your individual misunderstanding of what it means to take something literally, as opposed to what you actually believe about the authority of the Bible. [QUOTE]Kind of a bias question because then the poll would be restricted to only Protestants and exclude Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.[/QUOTE] Sort of, both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox agree with [I]tota scriptura[/I], but they disagree with [I]sola scriptura[/I]. My second question: "Do you believe that the entire Bible is authoritative?" would apply to all three groups.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;52240772]They're also the really creepy "super nice" ones, right, out in Utah? We work with a company that's about 99% mormon - the colleagues all refer to each other as "brother" or "sister". We thought it was just a cute office culture thing, then we realized it was a religious thing and we got really weirded out because they'd always spare 10 minutes at the end of every status update meeting talking to us about our "spiritual life". :unimpressed: [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-10-people-posthumously-baptized-by-mormons-2012-3?IR=T"]Also, they keep trying to convert dead people to Mormonism, which is also pretty fuckin' weird.[/URL] Stop trying to harvest Gandhi's soul, dammit, the man has nukes! Also, Jehova's Witnesses - they annoy the shit out of me by ringing the bell when I'm in the shower [I]and[/I] they don't celebrate birthdays? That's just fuckin' diabolical, man.[/QUOTE] Actual Mormon here. Not trying to call you out or cause contention or anything, just giving some clarification. Proxy baptisms for the deceased are to give those who never had the chance to be baptized in this life the opportunity to "accept" it or "reject" it in the afterlife. It doesn't magically turn them Mormon and we don't count them as members. Christ said "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" so we can be baptized in behalf of those people. Also concerning the thread topic at hand, here's a quote from Joseph Smith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God [b]as far as it is translated correctly[/b]". Because no translation of the Bible is completely without error (hence the hundreds of translation variations), we can't say with surety that every single word in the Bible is the literal word of God due to the fact that it comes filtered by man through generations of scribes and translators. i've thought of doing an AMA here on fp but talking religion on a video game forum seems kinda out of place

[QUOTE=TerrorShield;52243202]Actual Mormon here. Not trying to call you out or cause contention or anything, just giving some clarification. Proxy baptisms for the deceased are to give those who never had the chance to be baptized in this life the opportunity to "accept" it or "reject" it in the afterlife. It doesn't magically turn them Mormon and we don't count them as members. Christ said "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" so we can be baptized in behalf of those people. Also concerning the thread topic at hand, here's a quote from Joseph Smith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God [b]as far as it is translated correctly[/b]". Because no translation of the Bible is completely without error (hence the hundreds of translation variations), we can't say with surety that every single word in the Bible is the literal word of God due to the fact that it comes filtered by man through generations of scribes and translators. i've thought of doing an AMA here on fp but talking religion on a video game forum seems kinda out of place[/QUOTE] I don't think it would go over well for you I would have many questions for you that I would word politely, others may not what so ever.

The only people I know who think the English translation is word for word exactly what God wanted written down are the King James Onlyists, and they're a tiny cult. The doctrine of inerrancy states that the original writings are inerrant, not every translation.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52242367]So "to be taken literally," doesn't mean "it should be taken literally?" What? It asked, "The actual word of God, to be taken literally." That means it is both the "actual word of God," and that it is "to be taken literally."[/QUOTE] Okay I have to ask you in complete candor and I want to make it clear I do not mean this in a disparaging way whatsoever Are you sure you don't have some kind of social disorder? Because that's very clearly not two seperate statements saying that it is both to be taken as the word of god and to be taken literally, it's one statement saying it is to be taken literally as the word of god. This is really not a common misunderstanding, the meaning of the statement is quite clear. I have to reiterate I don't mean this as an insult or a jab, but I think you might have some comprehension issues.

[QUOTE=elowin;52243340]Okay I have to ask you in complete candor and I want to make it clear I do not mean this in a disparaging way whatsoever Are you sure you don't have some kind of social disorder? Because that's very clearly not two seperate statements saying that it is both to be taken as the word of god and to be taken literally, it's one statement saying it is to be taken literally as the word of god. This is really not a common misunderstanding, the meaning of the statement is quite clear. I have to reiterate I don't mean this as an insult or a job, but I think you might have some comprehension issues.[/QUOTE] And I think you substitute insult for actual arguments. So I guess we're even? I already gave an in depth explanation and example of how they are different. If you want to respond, then please do, but I ~literally~ couldn't care less what you think of me personally.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240504]This is such a stupid question. No one takes the entire Bible literally because there are parts that are explicitly figurative. No one thinks people are literally sheep for example.[/QUOTE] I don't know, you sheeple will believe anything!

[QUOTE=sgman91;52240504]This is such a stupid question. No one takes the entire Bible literally because there are parts that are explicitly figurative. No one thinks people are literally sheep for example.[/QUOTE] Ah, you have no idea man. Living in a country where over 86 percent of the people are catholic, my brain's about to explode whenever someone takes what's written in the bible literally and uses that to argue in class.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52243349]And I think you substitute insult for actual arguments. So I guess we're even? I already gave an in depth explanation and example of how they are different. If you want to respond, then please do, but I ~literally~ couldn't care less what you think of me personally.[/QUOTE] It would really help if you weren't so incredibly hostile. Like I said, I'm trying very hard not to make it sound like an insult, because it's not. Disorders are a pretty normal thing. And I'm not really sure what it is you think we're "even" on. Very few other people would read this sentence that way. It's not "Is the Bible the word of god, and also to be taken completely literally" It's "Is the Bible the word of god to be taken literally." There's no comma, there's no pause, there's no and. It's the same statement. They're not in any way separate statements, the "to be taken literally" part is directly relating to the "Word of god" part. You could rephrase this statements as "Is the bible to be taken literally as the word of god", or "Is the bible the direct word of god" without changing the meaning. However, "Is the bible the actual word of god and to be taken literally" completely transforms it into two separate statements with an entirely different meaning. I just think maybe if you're more aware of this in the future, and perhaps seek some advice from others when thinking about what people mean by their words, you might be able to better understand what other people mean, which is extremely essential for good communication.

[QUOTE=elowin;52243390]It would really help if you weren't so incredibly hostile. Like I said, I'm trying very hard not to make it sound like an insult, because it's not. Disorders are a pretty normal thing. And I'm not really sure what it is you think we're "even" on. Very few other people would read this sentence that way. It's not "Is the Bible the word of god, and also to be taken completely literally" It's "Is the Bible the word of god to be taken literally." There's no comma, there's no pause, there's no and. It's the same statement. They're not in any way separate statements, the "to be taken literally" part is directly relating to the "Word of god" part. You could rephrase this statements as "Is the bible to be taken literally as the word of god", or "Is the bible the direct word of god" without changing the meaning. However, "Is the bible the actual word of god and to be taken literally" completely transforms it into two separate statements with an entirely different meaning. I just think maybe if you're more aware of this in the future, and perhaps seek some advice from others when thinking about what people mean by their words, you might be able to better understand what other people mean, which is extremely essential for good communication.[/QUOTE] Lol, I'm not going to try discussing with childish condescension like that. You bring personal insults into it and then have the gall to call me hostile. OK. Have fun feeling good about yourself. You're clearly much to socially aware for me.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52243406]Lol, I'm not going to try discussing with childish condescension like that. You bring personal insults into it and then have the gall to call me hostile. OK.[/QUOTE] Well, yes. You're being a little hostile. Is it really so hard to accept the idea that a minor mental issue might not be an insult? Because I'm seriously just trying to help you understand what's was actually being said with that statement. But just to clarify [i]again[/i], I did not mean that in a disparaging way. I have mental problems myself. Everyone has flaws, no one is perfect, it's not some kind of taboo. It's just a problem which, like most other issues can at least be mitigated if you're aware of it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52243406]Lol, I'm not going to try discussing with childish condescension like that. You bring personal insults into it and then have the gall to call me hostile. OK. Have fun feeling good about yourself. You're clearly much to socially aware for me.[/QUOTE] If you don't want condensation then don't start accusing people of things that they aren't doing?

I'm not going to make this about me. If you want to discuss the topic, then great, but I'm not going to devolve into armchair psychoanalysis.

[QUOTE=TerrorShield;52243202]Actual Mormon here. Not trying to call you out or cause contention or anything, just giving some clarification. Proxy baptisms for the deceased are to give those who never had the chance to be baptized in this life the opportunity to "accept" it or "reject" it in the afterlife. It doesn't magically turn them Mormon and we don't count them as members. Christ said "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" so we can be baptized in behalf of those people. Also concerning the thread topic at hand, here's a quote from Joseph Smith: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God [b]as far as it is translated correctly[/b]". Because no translation of the Bible is completely without error (hence the hundreds of translation variations), we can't say with surety that every single word in the Bible is the literal word of God due to the fact that it comes filtered by man through generations of scribes and translators. i've thought of doing an AMA here on fp but talking religion on a video game forum seems kinda out of place[/QUOTE] There have only been a few generations of translators, starting with Martin Luther. Before that, it was all in Latin and copied identical from previous copies over and over throughout the centuries by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. And those Latin versions didn't disappear just because Luther began writing the bible in German (which in his edition heavily "edited" what was suppose to be divine truth). Those bibles are still around today, saying the same things they said in the year 400. [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=elowin;52243390]It would really help if you weren't so incredibly hostile. Like I said, I'm trying very hard not to make it sound like an insult, because it's not. Disorders are a pretty normal thing. And I'm not really sure what it is you think we're "even" on.[/QUOTE] How the hell is coming into a thread and asking someone if they have a social disorder [I]not[/I] offensive? You could have completely argued against his point without that statement whatsoever but you went out of your way to even emphasize how supposedly polite you're trying to be about it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52244473]How the hell is coming into a thread and asking someone if they have a social disorder [I]not[/I] offensive? You could have completely argued against his point without that statement whatsoever but you went out of your way to even emphasize how supposedly polite you're trying to be about it.[/QUOTE] Because his entire point is that he consistently misunderstands the question posed by the poll. If I can help someone better understand something, then I think that's what I should do?

[QUOTE=elowin;52244934]Because his entire point is that he consistently misunderstands the question posed by the poll.[/QUOTE] So misunderstanding something implies mental disorder or disease? Even if you are a doctor, you cannot even possibly come to that diagnosis over a poster's comments. It's explicitly being offensive and purpose to goad him into an equally offensive retort.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52244942]So misunderstanding something implies mental disorder or disease? Even if you are a doctor, you cannot even possibly come to that diagnosis over a poster's comments. It's explicitly being offensive and purpose to goad him into an equally offensive retort.[/QUOTE] Is having mental problems extremely taboo in America or something? Because I can't believe I have to say this a fourth time, but I am actually really not trying to insult anyone here, okay? I'm just trying to help him understand, and hopefully prod him to be more aware of these misunderstandings in the future. Mental disorders run the range from the extremely minor to the immensely pervasive, obviously this is in the minor camp. I'm just saying he seems to understand statements slightly differently than how most people would and I think he can probably mitigate the effects of this by just taking a moment to consider if this is what was actually meant.