What's your view on the accuracy of the Bible? - FREEP THIS POLL!!!

MSNBC.Com ^ | 12/24/2001 | MSNBC.Com

[Bobby777]

what ever your views are FReep this poll!!! let's keep this thing bumped ... the score is terrible ... c'mon Christians ... it's on the left ... a little bit down ...

[ProudGenXLibertarian]

How can the bible be possibly literally true?? When its based on the words of a man, who did not write it. You mean to honestly tell me the writers of the bible did not bend or change words or stories to encompass what they felt was right or wrong?? Please dont misunderstand, I am a christian, which is to say that I am a believer in Christ, not a fundementalist believer though. But to honestly think the Bible is a literal truth, without ANY adaption, editing or other differences in translation strikes me as unrealistic.

[RnMomof7]

Good morning..weather report from Buffalo..we have 3 feet of standing snow and drifts of 6-7 feet..

Airport closed California daughter will not be going home as expected :>))

[reboot]

The geneologies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are not the same, which one is correct.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer: They BOTH are! One is the lineage from the Mary's side.

I don't buy that argument! In Matthew the genealogy begins with Abraham and ends with Joseph the husband of Mary. In Luke the genealogy goes backward from Joseph to Adam. There is no reference anywhere to a genealogy of Mary, anywhere in the text or the footnotes of the five different versions of the Bible I have.

Literalists always have this problem, they can't explain the contradictions between the four gospels, so they have to make this stuff up to justify their belief in a literal interpretation.

Luke tells us that Jesus was born at the time of the census of Quirinius. This took place in 6 AD. Yet Matthew tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in 4 BC. Luke contradicts himself when he states that Jesus and John were concieved six months apart in the reign of Herod, but still portrays Mary pregnant with Jesus at the time of the census in 6 AD. Did she have a ten year pregnancy?

Too many problems are created when you take every word literally. There is much greater spiritual truth when we study the Bible as allegory as it was clearly intended.

[RnMomof7]

I don't buy that argument! In Matthew the genealogy begins with Abraham and ends with Joseph the husband of Mary. In Luke the genealogy goes backward from Joseph to Adam. There is no reference anywhere to a genealogy of Mary, anywhere in the text or the footnotes of the five different versions of the Bible I have.

Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, Luke is Mary's. what is interesting is In Mary's her line is traced back to the first man..this shows that Jesus is God and Man; the second Adam

[RadioAstronomer]

Wow! Thanks for the hi back. :) Guess you will just have to enjoy her company a little longer. :)

[reboot]

Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, Luke is Mary's. what is interesting is In Mary's her line is traced back to the first man..this shows that Jesus is God and Man; the second Adam.

I still don't see where you guys get this stuff. My Bibles have no reference to a genealogy of Mary. Where is it? Clearly one ends with Joseph, the other starts with Joseph. Both refer to him as the father of Jesus!

[nicmarlo]

How can the bible be possibly literally true?? When its based on the words of a man, who did not write it. You mean to honestly tell me the writers of the bible did not bend or change words or stories to encompass what they felt was right or wrong??

The words and books of the Bible, as we know it (Old and New Testaments) were each written for different purposes: some of it is written as historical fact, geneology, proverbs, allegory, prophecy (i.e., Daniel, Ezekiel, Revelation), song (i.e., Psalms), guidance for living (i.e., James, Ephesians), guidance to churches (Corinthians), etc. Different people wrote different portions, but all were moved by the Holy Spirit what to write, how to write, through individual perceptions and understandings (David, a king, wrote from a different perspective and for a different reason than did Luke, a doctor; Daniel, a prophet, wrote, also, from a different perspective and reason than did Paul, a Pharisee, Roman citizen, prior persecutor of the Christians, and one who never saw Jesus while He was alive). As we, individually, make up the Church, and bring our individuality and unique views to others for understanding, so, too, does this occur in the Bible. The differences, for example, between the four Gospels (Matt., Mark, Luke, and John), exist because four men focused on different areas of the same story (as many people viewing an accident see different things because each person is unique and sees the world from different vantage points). The "discrepancies" between the Gospels do not make one less or more accurate. They occur because one writer focused on something different, a different impression made upon and perceived by the writer, adding to the richness of the written Word.

Notwithstanding the fact that the original text was not written in English, human beings had to translate, and did so with great effort (and, I am sure some errors in translation), the Bible remains a living text, bringing different insight to each reader. (One individual can read a text one year which, if read again several years later, yields a different, perhaps, deeper meaning and understanding.)

There is, however, a central theme, or thread, throughout both Old and New Testaments: Looking toward a Savior for the world and Christ's deity. Everything written must be accepted by faith as the true Word of God. Just as not accepting the Bible as the true Word of God takes faith to disbelieve.

[Scully]

Oh, I get it - you were being castigated for someone mispelling the word, "orangutan".

[RnMomof7]

The genealogies of Matthew and Luke have their similarities and their differences. Through the Lucan genealogy goes back to Adam and that of Matthew goes only to Abraham,they are both in absolute agreement in the generations between Abraham and David. It is with the Son of David that he great differences begin,for Luke traces the our Lord's ancestory from David through Nathan,whereas Matthew uses the royal line through Soloman .It is true that the names Shealtiel,Zerubbavbel,and possibly Matthat appear subsequently in both,but otherwise the lists are entirely different. Indeed in one ,Jacob is spoken of as Joseph's father;whereas in the other.Heli is presumably so presented.

Two views have been maintained by equally godly and learned scholars. some believe both genealogies are of Joseph,but that the one in Matthew gives the legal desendants of David to establish our Lords claim to the Davidic throne,while Luke gives the particular line to which Joseph actually belonged. The seconnd list,then, is spoken of as the collateral line and is eligible for royal duty when the legal line is incapacitated or becomes extint.

A far simpler solution,and in all probability ,the true one ,is that since every individual has two genealogies-one through his father and one through his mother-so Matthew presents Joseph's and Luke presents Mary's genealogy-so Matthew presents Joseph's genealogy (the Lords foster father,not His actual father),whereas Luke presents Mary's genealogy. This view is supported by linguistic and historical evidence and is held by many students of the Bible. In addition, appeal may be made to Num 27:1-11 and 36:1-12 to give scripitual precedent for the substitution of Joseph's name in Lk 3:23.At the same time it avoids the judgement spoken of in Jer 22:28-30

(Scofield notes)

[barf]

That was outstanding. Thank you. I graduated from college fifty years ago and nothing seems the same anymore. Stupidity is as stupidity does. But all religions are suspect in my mind. If it makes you feel good then it must BE good. A thousand years from now, if man is still hanging around, they may be thinking of us as we think of the old Platonic god worshipers. Relative to God, I tend to follow Carl Sagen. The more that we learn about astronomy, the more that we recognize God. The existence of our species is less than a glimmer of faint light in the scale of the Universe. Within normal tolerance, we are nothing. The tooth fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus have as much credibility as current Gods.

[Le-Roy]

That's the second time I have seen you reference John Wesley. Are you aware that he edited the Bible he used, omitting parts in their entirety?

[RnMomof7]

You of course have some evidence of that:>) truth is he was no scholar..and probably used a King James Bible..Are you aware He was a Priest in the Chruch of England,during his entire ministry and that he died as one? (I do believe that the church of England used a king James Version :>)

[StolarStorm]

Thankfully there is a God, and that He has already decided what constitutes a sentient being capable of sustainingt a soul. Neither Creationists nor Evolutionists have a "lock" on salvation purely from these viewpoints...it is NOT a point of salvation (and I defy anyone to show me a passage in Scripture which states that I must believe one way or another to gain admittance to the Kingdom). I am a scientist. I believe that evolution is the closest, best theory we have to date, and I don't give a rat's rump at what point God decided to give our ancestors a soul - the point is that at some point He did. I also believe that most of the Bible has been preserved intact, although with some loss of character and humor. Furthermore, I know that when I die, I'm going to Heaven...because I have done (through Grace) the one thing necessary for Salvation: I believe utterly that Jesus died for my sins.

Thank you for explaining my view in a more eloquent manner.

[StolarStorm]

Sorry. I forgot to answer your question. An evolving man needs G-d for:

1. The initial creation of the Universe

2. Man still dies and requires G_d for eternal life

3. Man is a child needing guidance

4. Man requires the love of a supreme being for his purpose

I could come up with a host of other reasons... but I don't have the time today.

[Junior]

The Bible is true or it is false. An opinion is not going to affect that either way.

Sorry. False dichotomy. A literary work can be both true and false at the same time; for example works of historical fiction often incorporate actual persons and events to further the story line. Your saying the Bible can only be true or false indicates you have not thought through the possibility that much of the Bible could be a work of historical fiction.

[a contender]

Nope Junior, IN THE TRUTH THERE IS NO LIE, you cannot mix them and still call it truth.

[Aggressive Calvinist]

Everything in the Bible is literally, symbolically, and analogically true.

[Elsie]

they can't explain the contradictions between the four gospels, so they have to make this stuff up to justify their belief in a literal interpretation.

---

On September 11th, Fox, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS were all running reports of a strange event that appeared to be taking place in NYC. I flipped thru the channels, but none of them seemed to agree, so I just turned them off.

---

Makes just about the same amount of sense!

[nicmarlo]

On September 11th, Fox, ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS were all running reports of a strange event that appeared to be taking place in NYC. I flipped thru the channels, but none of them seemed to agree

Very good analogy! Kudos to you.

[Elsie]

I still don't see where you guys get this stuff. My Bibles have no reference to a genealogy of Mary. Where is it? Clearly one ends with Joseph, the other starts with Joseph. Both refer to him as the father of Jesus!

---

Luke 3:23
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

---

(I might add some people STILL think so..........)