[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

The score doesn't look so bad to me:

Every detail is literally true. -- 38%
Some details may be inaccurate or exaggerated, but the fundamentals are true. -- 34%
The Bible is fundamentally fiction, incorporating some historical facts. -- 24%
None of the above -- 4%.

I am in the 2nd group myself, as a non-fundamentalist. When you consider the non-Christians, and the CINO's in the country, the 72% for at least fundamentally true is pretty good, it seems to me.

[Paleo Conservative]

What do you consider to be the correct answer?

What's your view on the accuracy of the Bible?

Every detail is literally true.

Some details may be inaccurate or exaggerated, but the fundamentals are true.

The Bible is fundamentally fiction, incorporating some historical facts.

None of the above (share your view on the Mysteries of the Universe BBS).

[Rain-maker]

None of the answers suit me. I view it as a spiritual philosophy mixed with history.

[sangoo]

FReeped!

[nicmarlo]

What's your view on the accuracy of the Bible?

* 99161 responses

Every detail is literally true. 38%
Some details may be inaccurate exaggerated, but the fundamentals are true 34%
The Bible is fundamentally fiction, incorporating some historical facts. 24%
None of the above (share your view on the Mysteries of the Universe BBS). 4%

Count another one for it's literally true.

[VRWC_minion]

What's your view on the accuracy of the Bible?
	* 99181 responses
	Every detail is literally true.  38%
	Some details may be inaccurate or exaggerated, but the fundamentals are true.  34%
	The Bible is fundamentally fiction, incorporating some historical facts.  24%
	None of the above (share your view on the Mysteries of the Universe BBS).  4%

[pray4liberty]

Done! Merry Christmas!

[brat]

BTTT

[MissouriRepublican]

Freeped and Bumped.

[aruanan]

“I CAN’T THINK of any New Testament scholar who takes [the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s birth] to be historically reliable,” said Fredriksen, a Boston University professor who specializes in early Christianity. “Most believe he was born in Nazareth.”

This guy is hopelessly out of touch with New Testament scholarship. He's still living in the late 19th century. His statement is one of the sure ways that you can spot a theologically liberal Bible scholar--in their minds, anyone who believes differently from them is, by definition, not a scholar; hence, he doesn't know of a single scholar who doesn't believe exactly the way he does.

[Rudder]

How on earth would we know if the Bible is accurate or not? Stupid poll.

[Quix]

REVISIONISM has been going on a long time. It will intensify. The Bible clearly indicates there will be a major deception so polished, potent, that IF it were possible, the authentic believers themselves would be deceived [except for God's protection from such for those who--for example--know and hear HIS VOICE.]

But those who's Christianity is on the order of feeling they are Christian because their parents were or because they are American--the kind of--"I'm a car because I'm in a garage" mentality . . . who extrinsically put RELIGION on like a coat rather than risk and persist in deepening an authentic RELATIONSHIP with ALMIGHTY GOD through The Only Door--Jesus, The Messiah--welllllllllll, the casual, half-hearted Christian may have a rude awakening. . . . Thankfully God is the sole judge of their hearts. . . but given the givens, I wouldn't want to risk eternal isolation from HIM.

[Sci Fi Guy]

I get so bugged by articles like this one. Just once I would like to see the mainstream media quote a conservative scholar. The majority of seminaries in this country are conservative. Modern scholarship strongly supports the traditional (high) view of the Bible. For example I've Heard that the view of the resurrection held by the most respected liberal scholars is that Jesus died on a cross and that his disciples believe he rose from the dead. (So strong was their belief, that most died for it.) Instead of reporting that, they find professors who cling to outdated scholarship.

[knighthawk]

Freeped at:

Every detail is literally true. 38%
Some details may be inaccurate or exaggerated, but the fundamentals are true. 34%
The Bible is fundamentally fiction, incorporating some historical facts. 25%

[BillyBoy]

Voted for Option 2: Some details may be inaccurate or exaggerated, but the fundamentals are true.

Any Christian who selected Option 3 needs to find themselves a new religion. ;-)

[RightWhale]

From the article:

---

“Most believe he was born in Nazareth.”

---

Starting the article this way encourages some to drop it and move on to something of potentially greater accuracy or utility. How can the author summarize the beliefs of Bible scholars in this way. Who has ever taken a poll of Bible scholars to see if most thought the reference to nazarene referred to the town?

---

[Alas]

Bobby,

38% agreeing with 2 Timothy 3:16 is absolutley amazing, I would have figured 5% tops.

Bob

[DreamWeaver]

I usually do not do cyber polls, but as a Christian I felt an obligation to speak out, so Freep I did.

[BibChr]

“I CAN’T THINK of any New Testament scholar who takes [the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s birth] to be historically reliable,” said Fredriksen...

...which reflects accurately, not the state nor consensus of modern scholarship, but the narrowness of Fredriksen's reading and frame of reference.

Dan
How to Make Your Very Own Jesus

[wwjdn]

MSNBC...and a poll...what a joke.

There are several incidents in the Bible that can be proven.

Even if it were not provable by "science" (that's another story), I believe it 200%...