Poll for Bible readers: Do you take the Bible literally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, reform Jew.

But about 1/4 of Americans say they do:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) now believe the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word," similar to the 26% who view it as "a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man." This is the first time in Gallup's four-decade trend that biblical literalism has not surpassed biblical skepticism. Meanwhile, about half of Americans -- a proportion largely unchanged over the years -- fall in the middle, saying the Bible is the inspired word of God but that not all of it should be taken literally.

This is encouraging, thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope--raised Catholic, and attended Catholic school through university.

I mean, the Bible clearly isn't meant to be taken literally. If it was, there wouldn't be two, contradictory creation stories, would there? It's a collection of books, written over a long period of time, that includes stories, poetry, proverbs, etc. If you take it literally, you have to tie yourself into knots to make sense of it.

There aren't two contradictory accounts. Genesis 1 is an overview, and Genesis 2 is more detail. Do you really think the writer would be so stupid as to forget what he wrote from one chapter to the next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nope--raised Catholic, and attended Catholic school through university.

I mean, the Bible clearly isn't meant to be taken literally. If it was, there wouldn't be two, contradictory creation stories, would there? It's a collection of books, written over a long period of time, that includes stories, poetry, proverbs, etc. If you take it literally, you have to tie yourself into knots to make sense of it.

+1
There also wouldn't be four different versions of the gospel, the accounting of the event that Christianity hinges on.

[Anonymous]

No, i’m Catholic. At Easter service our priest joked about us needing to dust off our bible since we are Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Yes, and why wouldn't I?

The Bible tells me I'm a sinner, and I pretty much have to agree with that wholeheartedly. The Bible also tells me that God Himself came to earth to redeem me from that sin. Which is pretty awesome.

What I always find hard to understand is that even for those who say the Bible is metaphor and allegorical, etc., they never seem to say what the allegory means. Even figurative writing has a point. So even when the Bible uses figurative language, it still means something. If you walked in with an umbrella and were soaking wet, and you said it was raining cats and dogs outside, am I to take you literally? Yes, you meant it was raining really hard. Taking you literally doesn't mean that cats and dogs were actually falling from the sky.

But that aside, there's not a whole lot of allegorical language in the Bible. Most of it is presented as straight-up narrative. The Genesis account isn't written figuratively; it's written as narrative. And even the creation account lasts for only three chapters. After that, it's presented as history. Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

If you read the entire Bible, that arc is clear and undeniable. The New Testament accounts are not written figuratively. The Gospels and Acts are presented as history, and there is much in them that is an interpretation of the Old Testament. In Matthew and Luke, you can see various references to different people who understood that Christ was the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. They knew exactly when and where Christ was to appear, because they knew their Old Testament Scripture. The epistles of the New Testament could be taken figuratively only by the most committed denier of what Scripture is saying. Indeed, when something is meant to be taken allegorically, the writers will say, basically, "Take this allegorically," but even then they are referring to historical events. And those cases are few.

Only Revelation in the New Testament can be said to be written in figurative language, but even then it means something, which is that Chris will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The Bible clearly takes itself seriously. If you don't like the message, that's your prerogative, but it has a message, and it means itself to be understood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and why wouldn't I?

The Bible tells me I'm a sinner, and I pretty much have to agree with that wholeheartedly. The Bible also tells me that God Himself came to earth to redeem me from that sin. Which is pretty awesome.

What I always find hard to understand is that even for those who say the Bible is metaphor and allegorical, etc., they never seem to say what the allegory means. Even figurative writing has a point. So even when the Bible uses figurative language, it still means something. If you walked in with an umbrella and were soaking wet, and you said it was raining cats and dogs outside, am I to take you literally? Yes, you meant it was raining really hard. Taking you literally doesn't mean that cats and dogs were actually falling from the sky.

But that aside, there's not a whole lot of allegorical language in the Bible. Most of it is presented as straight-up narrative. The Genesis account isn't written figuratively; it's written as narrative. And even the creation account lasts for only three chapters. After that, it's presented as history. Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

If you read the entire Bible, that arc is clear and undeniable. The New Testament accounts are not written figuratively. The Gospels and Acts are presented as history, and there is much in them that is an interpretation of the Old Testament. In Matthew and Luke, you can see various references to different people who understood that Christ was the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. They knew exactly when and where Christ was to appear, because they knew their Old Testament Scripture. The epistles of the New Testament could be taken figuratively only by the most committed denier of what Scripture is saying. Indeed, when something is meant to be taken allegorically, the writers will say, basically, "Take this allegorically," but even then they are referring to historical events. And those cases are few.

Only Revelation in the New Testament can be said to be written in figurative language, but even then it means something, which is that Chris will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The Bible clearly takes itself seriously. If you don't like the message, that's your prerogative, but it has a message, and it means itself to be understood.

+1 I am the other poster above who also responded with yes. Glad that there are two of us in the poll. Thank you for explaining so well what I often don't bother explaining to most people.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I take the bible literally. I am a non-denominational bible-believing Christian.

Notice how that the more people turn away from the bible, the more society seems to decline with more shootings, murders, rapes, and thugs running about as they do in Britain.

Also, the ability to get gay "marriage" acknowledged by law also corresponds with a decline of people taking the bible literally. There is a direct correlation between bible-believing and righteousness, for without the bible where shall we learn to be righteous? You do not learn righteousness without the Bible, you do whatever "feels right" to yourself. And then you get idiot politicians bemoaning those people who "cling to Religion", meaning, not clinging to the soft, lukewarm vomit religion of "I feel good so we are all good" but the SALT, the vibrant and living Word of God that convicts one of sin unto repentance.

When you abandon the Word of God, which is there for reproof and for teaching righteousness, then all that is left is listening to somebody in a pulpit tickling your ears to make you feel good. And because that person has no foundation in the Word of God, that person is easily led astray to a dead end where faith is lost, usually after losing a lot of money thinking sending in money will get you a fast track to God's big blessings.

The bible says at the time of the end there will be a great falling away. The first step to falling away from the faith is to stop reading the bible, and to stop taking it literally and instead accept "blind guides" telling you the bible is just a metaphor, as if "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is some kind of metaphor.

People are no different today than they were 2,000 years ago. Nothing has changed. A sinner in a chariot is no different than a sinner in an airplane. The bible is just as relevant for today as it was back then, even moreso as many liars are about doing their best to try and convince everyone the bible is untrue and irrelevant.

I listen to none of these people. Anything anyone tries to teach gets compared to what is in the bible. If they do not match, that person or textbook or whatever, is out and completely disregarded.

Since the previous attempt to separate people from their bibles by killing them failed, the new tactic is for the evil people with an appearance of intellect and learning to look down in condescension upon "that old book written by goat herders" so as to shame people from taking it seriously, to make false claims that "science has disproven it" --certainly not! and other such tactics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I take the bible literally. I am a non-denominational bible-believing Christian.

Notice how that the more people turn away from the bible, the more society seems to decline with more shootings, murders, rapes, and thugs running about as they do in Britain.

Also, the ability to get gay "marriage" acknowledged by law also corresponds with a decline of people taking the bible literally. There is a direct correlation between bible-believing and righteousness, for without the bible where shall we learn to be righteous? You do not learn righteousness without the Bible, you do whatever "feels right" to yourself. And then you get idiot politicians bemoaning those people who "cling to Religion", meaning, not clinging to the soft, lukewarm vomit religion of "I feel good so we are all good" but the SALT, the vibrant and living Word of God that convicts one of sin unto repentance.

When you abandon the Word of God, which is there for reproof and for teaching righteousness, then all that is left is listening to somebody in a pulpit tickling your ears to make you feel good. And because that person has no foundation in the Word of God, that person is easily led astray to a dead end where faith is lost, usually after losing a lot of money thinking sending in money will get you a fast track to God's big blessings.

The bible says at the time of the end there will be a great falling away. The first step to falling away from the faith is to stop reading the bible, and to stop taking it literally and instead accept "blind guides" telling you the bible is just a metaphor, as if "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is some kind of metaphor.

People are no different today than they were 2,000 years ago. Nothing has changed. A sinner in a chariot is no different than a sinner in an airplane. The bible is just as relevant for today as it was back then, even moreso as many liars are about doing their best to try and convince everyone the bible is untrue and irrelevant.

I listen to none of these people. Anything anyone tries to teach gets compared to what is in the bible. If they do not match, that person or textbook or whatever, is out and completely disregarded.

Since the previous attempt to separate people from their bibles by killing them failed, the new tactic is for the evil people with an appearance of intellect and learning to look down in condescension upon "that old book written by goat herders" so as to shame people from taking it seriously, to make false claims that "science has disproven it" --certainly not! and other such tactics.

Thank you, there are 3 of us in the poll.
I am highly educated and reading of the Bible is one of the most difficult things I do. The Bible is by no means an easy, allegorical fairytale. It's a complex, divine message, which is very clear and precise in its instruction. Reading and knowledge of the Bible are indicative of the discipline, something that easy-belivism shirks. I could put my money on the fact that over 90% of "believers" don't read and study the Bible regularly.I am very suspicious of "pastors" and "priests" transmitting their "knowledge" to anyone. I have the Bible. I do not need anyone to teach me.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, “Take heed that no man deceive you." Matthew 24:4

[Anonymous]

so, for you three people who said "yes." You think that a divine spirit actually gathered a bunch of dust, blew into it, and created a human man, who then populated the earth with a woman created from a piece of his rib? And that woman got into a debate with a snake over eating an apple, and so now (1) we are banned from "paradise" and also have labor pains?

And you believe that a 600 year old man built a giant boat, shepherded two of each animal on the earth into it, and lived on board with only his family, after which those same people and animals again re-populated the earth with both humans and animals?

Please help me understand how this is consistent with everything we know about human and animal evolution and development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I take the bible literally. I am a non-denominational bible-believing Christian.

Notice how that the more people turn away from the bible, the more society seems to decline with more shootings, murders, rapes, and thugs running about as they do in Britain.

Also, the ability to get gay "marriage" acknowledged by law also corresponds with a decline of people taking the bible literally. There is a direct correlation between bible-believing and righteousness, for without the bible where shall we learn to be righteous? You do not learn righteousness without the Bible, you do whatever "feels right" to yourself. And then you get idiot politicians bemoaning those people who "cling to Religion", meaning, not clinging to the soft, lukewarm vomit religion of "I feel good so we are all good" but the SALT, the vibrant and living Word of God that convicts one of sin unto repentance.

When you abandon the Word of God, which is there for reproof and for teaching righteousness, then all that is left is listening to somebody in a pulpit tickling your ears to make you feel good. And because that person has no foundation in the Word of God, that person is easily led astray to a dead end where faith is lost, usually after losing a lot of money thinking sending in money will get you a fast track to God's big blessings.

The bible says at the time of the end there will be a great falling away. The first step to falling away from the faith is to stop reading the bible, and to stop taking it literally and instead accept "blind guides" telling you the bible is just a metaphor, as if "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is some kind of metaphor.

People are no different today than they were 2,000 years ago. Nothing has changed. A sinner in a chariot is no different than a sinner in an airplane. The bible is just as relevant for today as it was back then, even moreso as many liars are about doing their best to try and convince everyone the bible is untrue and irrelevant.

I listen to none of these people. Anything anyone tries to teach gets compared to what is in the bible. If they do not match, that person or textbook or whatever, is out and completely disregarded.

Since the previous attempt to separate people from their bibles by killing them failed, the new tactic is for the evil people with an appearance of intellect and learning to look down in condescension upon "that old book written by goat herders" so as to shame people from taking it seriously, to make false claims that "science has disproven it" --certainly not! and other such tactics.

Thank you, there are 3 of us in the poll.
I am highly educated and reading of the Bible is one of the most difficult things I do. The Bible is by no means an easy, allegorical fairytale. It's a complex, divine message, which is very clear and precise in its instruction. Reading and knowledge of the Bible are indicative of the discipline, something that easy-belivism shirks. I could put my money on the fact that over 90% of "believers" don't read and study the Bible regularly.I am very suspicious of "pastors" and "priests" transmitting their "knowledge" to anyone. I have the Bible. I do not need anyone to teach me.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, “Take heed that no man deceive you." Matthew 24:4

Yes! Well said, and well done quoting Jesus (how can you know what Jesus said if you do not read the bible?). If you know what the bible says, and you are obeying the commandments, loving God wth your whole heart, mind, and soul, the deceivers and false teachers cannot get a hook into you. Without the bible, you cannot put on "the whole armor of God" to defend against the evil ones.

The bible is called "the sword of the spirit". The best way to defeat someone is to take away their weapon making them unable to strike back. This is why today, as it has always been, why the enemies of Christ do their best to get the bible out of the hands of believers.

The bible is a weapon to be used against false words of deception, to "cut the Gordion knot" of excuses and vain explanations to categorize a sin as not-a-sin, such as homosexuality. Without the bible, a person cannot discern the difference between truth and error.

Ephesians 6:11

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope--raised Catholic, and attended Catholic school through university.

I mean, the Bible clearly isn't meant to be taken literally. If it was, there wouldn't be two, contradictory creation stories, would there? It's a collection of books, written over a long period of time, that includes stories, poetry, proverbs, etc. If you take it literally, you have to tie yourself into knots to make sense of it.

There aren't two contradictory accounts. Genesis 1 is an overview, and Genesis 2 is more detail. Do you really think the writer would be so stupid as to forget what he wrote from one chapter to the next?

More than one person contributed to the book of Genesis, and it probably wasn't written down all at once, but over a span of time.

And the accounts are contradictory. In the first version, God creates fish and birds on the fourth day, land animals on the fifth day, and humans (male and female) on the sixth day. In the second version, God creates one man, then all the animals, then one woman. Which is not a problem if you understand them as creation myths intended to convey truths about God's relationship to his creation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and why wouldn't I?

The Bible tells me I'm a sinner, and I pretty much have to agree with that wholeheartedly. The Bible also tells me that God Himself came to earth to redeem me from that sin. Which is pretty awesome.

What I always find hard to understand is that even for those who say the Bible is metaphor and allegorical, etc., they never seem to say what the allegory means. Even figurative writing has a point. So even when the Bible uses figurative language, it still means something. If you walked in with an umbrella and were soaking wet, and you said it was raining cats and dogs outside, am I to take you literally? Yes, you meant it was raining really hard. Taking you literally doesn't mean that cats and dogs were actually falling from the sky.

But that aside, there's not a whole lot of allegorical language in the Bible. Most of it is presented as straight-up narrative. The Genesis account isn't written figuratively; it's written as narrative. And even the creation account lasts for only three chapters. After that, it's presented as history. Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

If you read the entire Bible, that arc is clear and undeniable. The New Testament accounts are not written figuratively. The Gospels and Acts are presented as history, and there is much in them that is an interpretation of the Old Testament. In Matthew and Luke, you can see various references to different people who understood that Christ was the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. They knew exactly when and where Christ was to appear, because they knew their Old Testament Scripture. The epistles of the New Testament could be taken figuratively only by the most committed denier of what Scripture is saying. Indeed, when something is meant to be taken allegorically, the writers will say, basically, "Take this allegorically," but even then they are referring to historical events. And those cases are few.

Only Revelation in the New Testament can be said to be written in figurative language, but even then it means something, which is that Chris will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The Bible clearly takes itself seriously. If you don't like the message, that's your prerogative, but it has a message, and it means itself to be understood.

What? The book of Psalms begs to differ. It's a collection of songs, not a historical narrative. Ditto for Proverbs (advice), the Song of Songs (love poem), and the book of Job. And the books of the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, etc.)--those are not narratives or history, but exhortations and warnings. They are full of metaphor and allegory. The book of Revelations falls squarely into the genre of apocalyptic literature, full of allegory and symbolism.

You can take the Bible quite seriously without taking it literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and why wouldn't I?

The Bible tells me I'm a sinner, and I pretty much have to agree with that wholeheartedly. The Bible also tells me that God Himself came to earth to redeem me from that sin. Which is pretty awesome.

What I always find hard to understand is that even for those who say the Bible is metaphor and allegorical, etc., they never seem to say what the allegory means. Even figurative writing has a point. So even when the Bible uses figurative language, it still means something. If you walked in with an umbrella and were soaking wet, and you said it was raining cats and dogs outside, am I to take you literally? Yes, you meant it was raining really hard. Taking you literally doesn't mean that cats and dogs were actually falling from the sky.

But that aside, there's not a whole lot of allegorical language in the Bible. Most of it is presented as straight-up narrative. The Genesis account isn't written figuratively; it's written as narrative. And even the creation account lasts for only three chapters. After that, it's presented as history. Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

If you read the entire Bible, that arc is clear and undeniable. The New Testament accounts are not written figuratively. The Gospels and Acts are presented as history, and there is much in them that is an interpretation of the Old Testament. In Matthew and Luke, you can see various references to different people who understood that Christ was the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. They knew exactly when and where Christ was to appear, because they knew their Old Testament Scripture. The epistles of the New Testament could be taken figuratively only by the most committed denier of what Scripture is saying. Indeed, when something is meant to be taken allegorically, the writers will say, basically, "Take this allegorically," but even then they are referring to historical events. And those cases are few.

Only Revelation in the New Testament can be said to be written in figurative language, but even then it means something, which is that Chris will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The Bible clearly takes itself seriously. If you don't like the message, that's your prerogative, but it has a message, and it means itself to be understood.

Why do you think if people that read the bible but don't take it literally are not taking the message seriously, even if it is a parable.

You think because people don't take the book literally that they don't learn lessons, don't understand the message, don't work to understand the message? Why would people read the bible if they are not trying to learn the lesson?

The people that answer yes they read the bible and no they don't take it literally are not saying they don't think there is a message or they don't take it seriously they are just saying they don't take it literally.

If I say it is raining cats and dogs, that literally means a truck of cats and dogs was in an accident and they are falling from the sky. Figuratively it means it is raining hard.

I don't' really care if others read it literally or figuratively. G-d speaks in many languages, maybe to you he speaks literally and to others he speaks figuratively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I take the bible literally. I am a non-denominational bible-believing Christian.

Notice how that the more people turn away from the bible, the more society seems to decline with more shootings, murders, rapes, and thugs running about as they do in Britain.

Also, the ability to get gay "marriage" acknowledged by law also corresponds with a decline of people taking the bible literally. There is a direct correlation between bible-believing and righteousness, for without the bible where shall we learn to be righteous? You do not learn righteousness without the Bible, you do whatever "feels right" to yourself. And then you get idiot politicians bemoaning those people who "cling to Religion", meaning, not clinging to the soft, lukewarm vomit religion of "I feel good so we are all good" but the SALT, the vibrant and living Word of God that convicts one of sin unto repentance.

When you abandon the Word of God, which is there for reproof and for teaching righteousness, then all that is left is listening to somebody in a pulpit tickling your ears to make you feel good. And because that person has no foundation in the Word of God, that person is easily led astray to a dead end where faith is lost, usually after losing a lot of money thinking sending in money will get you a fast track to God's big blessings.

The bible says at the time of the end there will be a great falling away. The first step to falling away from the faith is to stop reading the bible, and to stop taking it literally and instead accept "blind guides" telling you the bible is just a metaphor, as if "Thou Shalt Not Steal" is some kind of metaphor.

People are no different today than they were 2,000 years ago. Nothing has changed. A sinner in a chariot is no different than a sinner in an airplane. The bible is just as relevant for today as it was back then, even moreso as many liars are about doing their best to try and convince everyone the bible is untrue and irrelevant.

I listen to none of these people. Anything anyone tries to teach gets compared to what is in the bible. If they do not match, that person or textbook or whatever, is out and completely disregarded.

Since the previous attempt to separate people from their bibles by killing them failed, the new tactic is for the evil people with an appearance of intellect and learning to look down in condescension upon "that old book written by goat herders" so as to shame people from taking it seriously, to make false claims that "science has disproven it" --certainly not! and other such tactics.

Thank you, there are 3 of us in the poll.
I am highly educated and reading of the Bible is one of the most difficult things I do. The Bible is by no means an easy, allegorical fairytale. It's a complex, divine message, which is very clear and precise in its instruction. Reading and knowledge of the Bible are indicative of the discipline, something that easy-belivism shirks. I could put my money on the fact that over 90% of "believers" don't read and study the Bible regularly.I am very suspicious of "pastors" and "priests" transmitting their "knowledge" to anyone. I have the Bible. I do not need anyone to teach me.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, “Take heed that no man deceive you." Matthew 24:4

Yes! Well said, and well done quoting Jesus (how can you know what Jesus said if you do not read the bible?). If you know what the bible says, and you are obeying the commandments, loving God wth your whole heart, mind, and soul, the deceivers and false teachers cannot get a hook into you. Without the bible, you cannot put on "the whole armor of God" to defend against the evil ones.

The bible is called "the sword of the spirit". The best way to defeat someone is to take away their weapon making them unable to strike back. This is why today, as it has always been, why the enemies of Christ do their best to get the bible out of the hands of believers.

The bible is a weapon to be used against false words of deception, to "cut the Gordion knot" of excuses and vain explanations to categorize a sin as not-a-sin, such as homosexuality. Without the bible, a person cannot discern the difference between truth and error.

Ephesians 6:11

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints

Nobody is "taking the bible out of the hands of the believers", most people have responded that they read the bible, they just take it as lessons explained figuratively not literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and why wouldn't I?

The Bible tells me I'm a sinner, and I pretty much have to agree with that wholeheartedly. The Bible also tells me that God Himself came to earth to redeem me from that sin. Which is pretty awesome.

What I always find hard to understand is that even for those who say the Bible is metaphor and allegorical, etc., they never seem to say what the allegory means. Even figurative writing has a point. So even when the Bible uses figurative language, it still means something. If you walked in with an umbrella and were soaking wet, and you said it was raining cats and dogs outside, am I to take you literally? Yes, you meant it was raining really hard. Taking you literally doesn't mean that cats and dogs were actually falling from the sky.

But that aside, there's not a whole lot of allegorical language in the Bible. Most of it is presented as straight-up narrative. The Genesis account isn't written figuratively; it's written as narrative. And even the creation account lasts for only three chapters. After that, it's presented as history. Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

If you read the entire Bible, that arc is clear and undeniable. The New Testament accounts are not written figuratively. The Gospels and Acts are presented as history, and there is much in them that is an interpretation of the Old Testament. In Matthew and Luke, you can see various references to different people who understood that Christ was the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. They knew exactly when and where Christ was to appear, because they knew their Old Testament Scripture. The epistles of the New Testament could be taken figuratively only by the most committed denier of what Scripture is saying. Indeed, when something is meant to be taken allegorically, the writers will say, basically, "Take this allegorically," but even then they are referring to historical events. And those cases are few.

Only Revelation in the New Testament can be said to be written in figurative language, but even then it means something, which is that Chris will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The Bible clearly takes itself seriously. If you don't like the message, that's your prerogative, but it has a message, and it means itself to be understood.

What? The book of Psalms begs to differ. It's a collection of songs, not a historical narrative. Ditto for Proverbs (advice), the Song of Songs (love poem), and the book of Job. And the books of the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, etc.)--those are not narratives or history, but exhortations and warnings. They are full of metaphor and allegory. The book of Revelations falls squarely into the genre of apocalyptic literature, full of allegory and symbolism.

You can take the Bible quite seriously without taking it literally.

For one, you are mistaking "allegorical" for "poetic." For two, I didn't say there is "no" allegorical language, but that what's there is in service to an idea: namely mankind's sin and God's mercy and providence of a Savior, which is, yes, meant to be taken literally. Finally, I said it's not the bulk of the Bible. There are 66 books in the Bible, and the ones mentioned are a few of them, and even those have the same concrete idea as the rest of the Bible.