Bush Says He Doubts Bible Literally True

AP ^ | 12-09-2008

[My Favorite Headache]

President George W. Bush said his belief that God created the world is not incompatible with scientific proof of evolution.

In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on Monday, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that God sent his only son.

About creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."

"You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" Bush said.

"It is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life," he said. "All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help. ... I was a one-step program guy."

"I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people,"

Asked whether he thought he would have become president had it not been for his faith, Bush said: "I don't know; it's hard to tell. I do know that I would have been — I would have been a pretty selfish person."

[E=MC2]

At present, we handle/mishandle scripture based on our sincerity/insincerity to draw near to the Author.

Translation: You cannot not take the Bible literally. Thank you.

[Mr. Silverback]

I’ll try to find a link for you...there’s study data showing that a person’s likelihood to believe in pseudoscientific crap is in reverse proportion to their church attendance. But it gets even better: Among those who don’t attend or seldom attend church, the acceptance of pseudoscience rises with education level. Among frequent churchgoers, the reverse is true: The more schooling, the more one rejects such crap.

BTW...Bill Maher says modern medicine is a scam, and he even rejects germ theory. But we’re the ones who are idiots because we believe in a creator. Yeah...riiiiiiiiggght!

[SkyPilot]

Good screen name (E=MC2). That is Truth.

All of God's formulas for the Universe are simple and complex - but also of such beauty.

F = GMm/R²

Yup - this is all just random, and no one designed this, it was just stuff (who created the stuff again?) running into each other......but the complexity was just.....WOW! Man! That Bong Water is really good stuff!

Now the Atheist comes into the debate, and starts scratching a hole in their face while saying "F$ck that $hit man.....there is no God man.......no way man!!!" (still scratching face......)

Gee....which of these do I give credence to?

[E=MC2]

how quickly he [Adam] evolved

Adam evolved before Eve was created? Evolved from what?

[starlifter]

These are your beliefs.

That does not make them universally true. What about the Gnostic gospels?

[P8riot]

You can’t argue with E=MC2. His premise denies any pretense of objectivity.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “That does not make them universally true.”

It’s God, Himself that makes it universally true. He is the Creator God of the universe and also the one who the founding fathers recognized as the one that would help them establish this nation and that it couldn’t be done without his help. They were clear on this.

And likewise, today, this country cannot be maintained without His help, in the same way it could not be founded without His help...

—

And you asked — “What about the Gnostic gospels?”

That’s not Scripture..., i.e., not God’s Word...

[Mr. Silverback]

Does anyone seriously believe that every word of the Bible is literal truth?

That's a false choice. For years we've been presented with this silly idea that one must consider the Bible a well-intentioned group of fairy tales (or a divinely inspired message that nevertheless is full of weird schlock, as if the writers were listening to God dictate on a really staticky radio) or one must hold that every word is literally true, so there really was a Good Samaritan and ten virgins with lamps, and the sun really did stand still once...it didn't appear to stand still, or the Earth didn't stop rotating around it it stopped in space.

Horse hockey!

The Bible is truly and faithfully recorded. Some of what it truly and faihfully records is people lying or getting things wrong, and some of it is literary (such as the parables) but all of it is faithfully recorded and inspired by God for the purposes of sending a truthful and clear mesage overall message.

It's not even self-consistent.

Oh...well, cite some inconsistencies for me.

[E=MC2]

Now the Atheist comes into the debate, and starts scratching a hole in their face while saying "F$ck that $hit man.....there is no God man.......no way man!!!" (still scratching face......) Gee....which of these do I give credence to?

This one?

Now the Creationist comes into the debate, and starts scratching a hole in their face while saying "F$ck that $hit man.....God did it....science is junk!!!" (still scratching face......)

[E=MC2]

Oh...well, cite some inconsistencies for me.

God (Genesis 2) created animals after creating Adam.

18: And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

[anniegetyourgun]

Much better - thank you...particularly given the presuppositional approaches of both.

[MarDav]

Once more, you have mis-read. I was referring to the handler of scripture in my comments, not the scriptures themselves.

Any comment I may have suggested about the literal meaning of scripture might be better translated: you MAY not take the Bible literally (as opposed to your saying “cannot be taken literally”). By saying “Cannot” you presume to know God’s mind, the full extent of Scripture, the power and ability of God to reveal Himself, the ability of God to preserve his inerrant Word to and for Man, and, I humbly submit, my or any other Bible-believing Christian’s spiritual state—all a bit beyond the reach of even Einstein himself!

The Bible, likewise, suggests a thing or two about its handlers (see ICor. 2:9-14)

[starlifter]

Ok. So God revealed, without any possible doubt, these premises. How do you know? You believe them to be true, which is fair. But so far you are asserting them to be true because you believe them to be true - circular reasoning? BTW, reasoning is on of God's greatest gifts and one way it reveals itself is through free will. I believe God wants us to use his gifts, including the gift of reason. For example, God created the universe in six days. Taken literally that's 3,648 minutes. Perhaps the "day" in Genesis is allegorical. God created man - perhaps that creation is the point in evolution when, through God's grace, we evolved from simians to humans. For many centuries revealed wisdom had it that the sun revolved around the earth. To question that was a heretical and capital offense. Why are the Gnostic gospels not scripture? Did God tell you they are not his word?

In both instances these are the judgments of fallible men. We all rely on the judgments of fallible men.

[RetiredArmy]

I believe in the Bible. I do not however believe every word in the Bible is "word for word" because of the various differences over the ages, the changes some made in interpreting the Bible from one language to another, even the memories of the individuals who wrote the various books of the Bible. I am sure that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not sit there and do short-hand when our Lord was speaking to them. I do believe they did however write it to the very best of their memories, etc. All that being said, I believe it, I live it, and one day when I am gone, I will be where Jesus said I would be when the death angel comes, in Heaven with Him.

Once, long ago, I worried about dying. I didn't want to die because I just could not accept the fact that I did not know what was after life. After I was saved, I did not worry about it any more. It just left me. I was a peace about it. I knew when I died, that there was a better place and that I was going to be there. I'm no expert on the Bible. I cannot recite you verse after verse like some well educated Bible folks can. But, I believe in what I read. I believe in what my Pastor says to me on Sunday morning, Sunday night, and at Bible study on Wednesday nights. I know that when I am there in church, I feel more at peace with my life, with the world, and enjoy the fellowship of the very old members down to the very young members of our church.

Back on election night, we were having a revival at our church. We went every night. On that Tuesday night, as our pastor got up to introduce the revival pastor for the evening, our pastor said, He was happy to be here tonight. He could not think of a better and more peaceful place to be on a night like this. That it was better to be there, listening to the word of God, than sitting home watching the "political mess" that was on TV. He said that here we were at peace, but if you were there watching every minute of the TV voting results, you would be mad, upset, happy, or crazy. And, he was right.

[SkyPilot]

hermeneutic of f/aith and hermeneutic of suspicion.

The very definition of hermetics is the study and interpretation of texts.

The hermeneutic of faith recognizes that the debate Paul and Peter were having was a productive one inspired by God— not to destroy either of them— but to lift up all of humanity in a difficult question of I think that both were sinful men, and they had a disagreement, and Paul won because he was correct.

OK.

No one ever won a debate against Christ, because He was God - but no man who could follow, despite being servants of God, could do that.

What is so hard about this for people (not necessarily you, but I am asking) to understand?

grace versus works. This is a timeless question

If we get tin the argument of Hermeneutics overall, I grow faint when I know the folks that may join in. Whew! Which texts? If I introduce the Koran, the North Korean Pamphlet to the Dear Leader?.......Little Women?.......what?...we will be here all month..... but you are correct that the debate is the study.

Christ valued faith above all (see how the faith of the Centurion thrilled Him).

In failing to see the value of debates God lays out in his spirit, we close off his unique manner of harvesting within humanity. We need to each speak honestly about what the Bible is saying to us and let God drive the reconciliation process. Ultimately God will judge and we are all the better for that. Rushing the closure of scripture can only end up placing the Bible prematurely on the shelf to gather dust.

That was very well put.

I go to this guy in that situation and when I feel such. Take care.

Ravi Zacharias many religions claiming to be the true path

[Mr. Silverback]

Yes, but do you have any consistencies to relate? Take them out of McKinsey's book if you want.

BTW, it took me all of five seconds to find a review pointing out not only McKinsey's lack of effectiveness, but an example of a particularly ludicrous "error" he brings up. Emphasis mine:

This book was not worth the price for several reasons. For one, it is not nearly in-depth as it should be. McKinsey brings up a vast selection of errors but rarely addresses appologetic responses... and if he does, he does not address appologetic rebuttals to his response. Many of the things he brings up as points have reasons behind them that appear to be equally as valid as some of his reasons against them (metaphors, cultural explainations, etc).

Furthmore, he appears to be reaching on many of his points. As one example, McKinsey makes the claim that the Bible cannot be true because one parable refers the mustard seed the smallest seed when it is, in fact, not. This seems just silly as the reference appears to be more of a litary hyperbole than a statement on botany. There are other examples similar to this one throughout the book.

Review here.

I've been a Christian long enough to know that most such "errors and inconsistencies" are of similar solidity, and even the good ones usually have more to do with Hebrew and Greek translation than anything else.

[Ken H]

Now the Atheist comes into the debate, and starts scratching a hole in their face while saying "[foul language redacted] that [foul language redacted] man.....there is no God man.......no way man!!!" (still scratching face......)

"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves;"

-2Tim.2

[Mr. Silverback]

Yep. Either the Bible is the real and authoritative Wordof God or it’s 66 fairy tales flying in close formation.

[E=MC2]

Good screen name (E=MC2). That is Truth.

No. It is just a formula invented by man to help model the universe.

[MarDav]

I like that analogy (flying in formation—wow!)