Newsweek Poll: Majority of Americans Believe the Bible to be Historically Accurate

[7starmantis]

That is a very, very good point. But in order for either of those to be true, wouldn't we have to accept that God (the literal or figurative father of Jesus) would have had to contribute DNA to father a son? I dont think Christians believe that God imparted DNA to Jesus, and in such beliefs, couldn't Joseph's DNA still been used? If you believe that God created you and your DNA, why wouldn't you believe that he could create Jesus using your DNA? Now if God contains no DNA because he isn't human, than Jesus couldn't be the literal son of God (at least not literal by human standards), but in order for a baby to be born (at least a human baby on planet earth) there has to be DNA from a mother and a father (human). So somewhere Jesus must have gotten some male DNA, where did he get it from if not from Joseph?

7sm

 

[qizmoduis]

That is a very, very good point. But in order for either of those to be true, wouldn't we have to accept that God (the literal or figurative father of Jesus) would have had to contribute DNA to father a son? I dont think Christians believe that God imparted DNA to Jesus, and in such beliefs, couldn't Joseph's DNA still been used? If you believe that God created you and your DNA, why wouldn't you believe that he could create Jesus using your DNA? Now if God contains no DNA because he isn't human, than Jesus couldn't be the literal son of God (at least not literal by human standards), but in order for a baby to be born (at least a human baby on planet earth) there has to be DNA from a mother and a father (human). So somewhere Jesus must have gotten some male DNA, where did he get it from if not from Joseph?

7sm

Well sure, but you have to remember that the event, as interpreted now, is regarded as a miracle. Common sense, scientific accurracy, laws of nature and logic are suspended, literally, by God. I'm guessing that one of the side benefits of omni-whatever is the ability to do stuff like this.

So no. DNA is not required from the father's side at all. Heck, given the somewhat nebulous boundaries that define what's allowable in a miracle, I'd imagine that it's as likely as not that he could've been running around with NO DNA whatsoever.

 

[7starmantis]

Well, I was just trying to stay within the boundries of the two "possibilities" mentioned, but I agree with you, if you regard it as a miracle then it doesn't matter about the lineages. But isn't that a little vague at best? What then about the the fulfillment of the prophecy? Was Jesus Joseph's son, thus fulfilling the prophecy; if he had NO DNA whatsoever?

7sm

 

[qizmoduis]

Well, I was just trying to stay within the boundries of the two "possibilities" mentioned, but I agree with you, if you regard it as a miracle then it doesn't matter about the lineages. But isn't that a little vague at best? What then about the the fulfillment of the prophecy? Was Jesus Joseph's son, thus fulfilling the prophecy; if he had NO DNA whatsoever?

7sm

Specifics destroy the mystery. Mystery is one of the most powerful cornerstones of religion and religious faith.

 

[7starmantis]

Specifics destroy the mystery. Mystery is one of the most powerful cornerstones of religion and religious faith.

How so? If the cornerstone to religion is mystery, than why are there Christian archeologists and historians, and scientists? Why actively seek to prove or disprove the bible, Koran, or any religious writing? If its mystery that holds religion together, than these people are tearing religion apart?

7sm

 

[heretic888]

That is a very, very good point. But in order for either of those to be true, wouldn't we have to accept that God (the literal or figurative father of Jesus) would have had to contribute DNA to father a son? I dont think Christians believe that God imparted DNA to Jesus, and in such beliefs, couldn't Joseph's DNA still been used? If you believe that God created you and your DNA, why wouldn't you believe that he could create Jesus using your DNA? Now if God contains no DNA because he isn't human, than Jesus couldn't be the literal son of God (at least not literal by human standards), but in order for a baby to be born (at least a human baby on planet earth) there has to be DNA from a mother and a father (human). So somewhere Jesus must have gotten some male DNA, where did he get it from if not from Joseph?

7sm

Mantis,

Please note the notion of virgin birth. Joseph is not supposed to have contributed to Jesus' birth at all. Yet, according to Jewish law, bloodlines are determined through patrinlineal descent.

Jesus is either the divine Christ or the mortal Messiah. Can't have it both ways.

Unless, of course, we are dealing with reality here and simply acknowledge that the whole story is a mythical allegory that attempted to combine Jewish religion with Hellenistic mystery cults.

 

[heretic888]

How so? If the cornerstone to religion is mystery, than why are there Christian archeologists and historians, and scientists? Why actively seek to prove or disprove the bible, Koran, or any religious writing? If its mystery that holds religion together, than these people are tearing religion apart?

The majority of Christians researching Christian archaelogy and history are attempting to vindicate their faith before others (or, perhaps, to themselves). Its a mass-conversion scheme.

 

[qizmoduis]

How so? If the cornerstone to religion is mystery, than why are there Christian archeologists and historians, and scientists? Why actively seek to prove or disprove the bible, Koran, or any religious writing? If its mystery that holds religion together, than these people are tearing religion apart?

7sm

Most people are compartmentalized. Most of the religious scientists are content to separate the mysteries of faith from the mysteries of the universe and the world around them. The mystery is there, but it's not a worldly mystery, if that makes any sense. Their goals don't revolve around proving or disproving articles of faith, but rather simply learning how the universe - God's universe - works.

The literalists, on the other, cannot do this. To them, the universe itself is the mystery. It was created by God (or whatever) in a very mysterious and powerful fashion as described in their scriptures. Observations and theories and all that which seemingly contradict their views have a powerful affect on their faith. Science literally shakes them to the core; rocks the very foundations of their faith. Science places limits on God's power. It channels the actions of their deity into the realm of the mundane; the non-mysterious. The bible says "God spoke, and there was light". Science says (as we understand it right now) - "A vast cloud of molecular hydrogen salted with various other heavier elements gravitationally condensed until the pressure and temperature was great enough to ignite a H->He fusion reaction at the center of mass, forming the Sun. The leftover detritus eventually (or simultaneously) condensed into planets of various types and sizes.". The average christian understands that the Bible was written by ancient, primitive nomads with no understanding of physics and science, and that it exists as an allegory. Atheists and non-christians (probably) consider it to be pure gabble. The literalist, on the other hand, sees the scientific explanation as a DIRECT ATTACK on his/her faith. Unfortunately, they can't respond simply by disagreeing. They need to reinforce their own faith by proving the science wrong. The only way to prove the science wrong is to offer an alternative explanation, in scientific terms, using the methodologies of science. In doing so, they do themselves harm, by seeking to explain the mysteries they so desparately cling to.

It's difficult for me to explain this in a way that makes sense, because I don't think it makes sense. To me, the worldview of a literalist is so alien as to be nearly incomprensible. What I wrote is probably completely off-base, so you should consider it to be my utterly uninformed opinion.

 

[heretic888]

Y'know, its funny....

I was just thinking about this poll in Newsweek and I seem to recall something similar coming up in a local newspaper in the Palm Beach area in Florida (a red state, by the way).

Funny thing is, though, that the opposite trend was evinced. A good chunk of people, in the +60% margin, seemed to think the virgin birth never happened (although many still believed Jesus to be the "son of God"). Even had a pastor in the article moaning and whining about people having a "pick-and-choose" approach to religion.

In any event, it kinda makes me question the scientific veracity of this poll. Shocking, I know.

 

[Cryozombie]

Every word of the Bible is 100% true,

Especially the part that says everyone on Martial Talk should send me 1 dollar.

 

[raedyn]

Especially the part that says everyone on Martial Talk should send me 1 dollar.

Hey, that's always been MY favorite part, too! I wanna get into heaven so... (digs in pocket, pulls out 20 bucks) Will this suffice?

j/k

 

[raedyn]

I was just thinking about this poll in Newsweek and I seem to recall something similar coming up in a local newspaper in the Palm Beach area in Florida (a red state, by the way).

Funny thing is, though, that the opposite trend was evinced. A good chunk of people, in the +60% margin, seemed to think the virgin birth never happened (although many still believed Jesus to be the "son of God"). Even had a pastor in the article moaning and whining about people having a "pick-and-choose" approach to religion.

In any event, it kinda makes me question the scientific veracity of this poll. Shocking, I know.

Or it might be a case of getting different answers depending on what question you ask. Like there might be people who would agree to the general statement "the bible is literal and historically accurate" but if you ask them about specific parts like the man living for 900 years, they might say they doubt the literal truth of it. Surveys are tricky that way. What question and how it's asked can have a huge impact on your results.

 

[Ray]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/

"Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmas—the Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the East—is historically accurate. Twenty-four percent of Americans believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention written to affirm faith in Jesus Christ, the poll shows. In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate. Thirty-eight percent do not believe that about the Bible."

Now, I realize that public opinion polls aren't exactly the most accurate measures on the face of the planet, and that fundamentalism being high in America almost goes without saying, but the sheer percentages brought up just make me wonder whether this whole democratic exchange of ideas thing is working. Thoughts?

Fundamentalism. If I recall the sociological definition, it refers to people who believe in a literal interpretation of their scriptures and believe that it is the only valid interpretation. But whenever I think of the "fundamentals" my mind is always drawn people who excel at something (like athletes) because they practice the fundamentals until the fundamentals are like instinct.

Events either happened or they didn't. American history, for example, was taught from a certain viewpoint when I was young and now has other viewpoints included. I suppose that how we interpret any history is determined by what we believe.

 

[raedyn]

I suppose that how we interpret any history is determined by what we believe.

Yes! One of my grade school teachers used history texts that were 50 years old. When I complained that they were outdated she told me "history doesn't change". But that's preposterous! The texts acutally referred to North American Indians as 'savages' and portrayed them as such - and my class was about 40% - 50% Aboriginal (cree, sioux, etc). History through the lens of the 40's is different than the lens of today.

 

[GAB]

Hi all,

Reading this reminds me of a time back when I was talking Bio 101.

Talking to another who was getting a good grade and comparing ideas thoughts and generally talking the talk.

He says I just get good grades because I need them to go on to another college. I am a 7th Day Adventist and don't believe much of this...

Brainwashed comes to mind....I said really? You don't believe the information that we are studing? Not most of it,he replied...

Many years later and in a very different setting I got a similar response from a Jehovas Witness... Sad, in my way of thinking. So what is real???

Bed time stories from a Book by Carl Sagan, or the Bible?

Regards, Gary

 

[Ray]

Yes! One of my grade school teachers used history texts that were 50 years old. When I complained that they were outdated she told me "history doesn't change". But that's preposterous! The texts acutally referred to North American Indians as 'savages' and portrayed them as such - and my class was about 40% - 50% Aboriginal (cree, sioux, etc). History through the lens of the 40's is different than the lens of today.

I would say that "history doesn't change but our interpretation of it does."

 

[Cryozombie]

Hey, that's always been MY favorite part, too! I wanna get into heaven so... (digs in pocket, pulls out 20 bucks) Will this suffice?

j/k

As a Legaly Ordained Minister in the Universal Life Church, I would be most happy to accept your donation of 20 dollars in exchange for a Plenary Indulgance, forgiving you for all Sins, Past, present and Future.

However, as a Christian, I must warn you, MY word is not the final say in that matter.

 

[Bester]

I was talking to the Lord the other day, and I asked him many questions about Life, The Universe, and Everything.

He didn't say much.

But, I saw an eagle fly by with a serpent in it's tallons, and as it flew by a single feather dropped from it's wing. As it fell, I counted the flutterations and the number was in fact 42.

I have no choice but to believe that the Late Douglas Adams was in fact the Second Coming, and we all have missed our chance at redemption.

I sought more proof, and lo, I found it. While driving by Lake Erie I searched the horizon, and again counted 42 white caps on the lake. More proof.

I now open the "Church of Doug Adams" to membership. Let all True Believers travel to their local book store and buy the Holy Books and seek the Word of Doug for them selves.

I now go to fit this fish in my ear so that I may talk to Dolphins.

Faloop.

 

[donald]

The bible is meant to be taken literally, but if you go to it with a disbelieving attitude. You're not going to see the message in its entirety. The main idea presented is that there is a GOD in heaven, that HE is the creator of ALL that there is, and that HE wants us to know HIM, on HIS terms. All of this is to be taken by faith. We are given free will. We can, if we choose to, reject the truth of the bible; by faith. I believe, that Jesus Christ is Lord. The only begotten Son of The Living GOD. This is by faith. That the evidence presented in The Bible is accurate,i.e. creation. I know that there have been, and are, many who use the Bible to sell there lies. There have been, and are, many who inaccurately "divide the Word of Truth" for their own profit. That is their decision. In the end we WILL know the truth, everyone of us...

By His Grace,
1st John1:9

 

[BlackCatBonz]

so which version of the bible do you use?

shawn