The President and the Bible

[JohnBirchSociety]

President George W. Bush said in a recent meeting that he does not believe the Bible is literally true.

My question(s): Do you believe the Bible is literally true? If so, why? If not, why? Does it really matter?

My answer(s):

1) No, the Bible is not literally true. There was no Garden of Eden as literally depicted in the Bible. Man did not spring forth from two humans 6000-6500 years ago. There was no global flood 4000 or so years ago. The Bible starts jiving with historical fact after the Exodus.

2) Yes, it matters. If the foundation is not literally true, then there is trouble when others refer to the foundation as validating their belief structures.

Your comments.

[mightynancy]

I think it is, at least in part, allegorical. :)

[Islander]

It is obvious that certain passages are allegorical and there are a number of literary resources utilized in the narrative. Now, caution must be utilized when asserting that it was fictitious or scientifically inaccurate. The origin of the scriptures go back to the late stone age. Language can not advance faster than technology and insights about the universe. Thus at times linguistically an idea read today may sound like a third grade sentence but humanity understood at that level 10,000 years ago.

[terryk]

8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

with that being said, I believe in genesis, and the transalations of gensis including the garden of eden, for I believe in God, more then I believe in the arm of flesh and how they can decipher dates, based on measuring the decay of certain carbon atoms. that being said, some things, such as the time between joseph and moses, may be off, and some generations may be missing, but what has been spoken by or lord, though his servants the prphets, should be accepted

[Aesa]

I think that it can be interpreted fairly literally.

If we're going to say "but the earth is millions of years old!" and "evolution" ... you know, that sort of thing, well there's a really simple answer to that.

We're just interpreting evidence, we're using your minds to arrive at understanding.

Evolution, Scientific Cosmology, etc, are just theories.

[Guest DeborahC]

No, I do not believe the Bible is "literally true" in the sense you are saying.

I believe much of what is written in the Bible is allegory and/or Hermetics/Kabalah. We are often "blinded" by translation which is often too literal and does not take into account the gematria that is so important in the Hebrew scriptures.

[DarthOpto]

Like TerryK I believe the Bible to be true as far as it is translated correctly.

The age of the earth is a simple thing to explain. The Hebrew word for "day" can mean a period of time. Therefore taken in that light, the age of the earth and the creation of the universe is easily understood.

Evolution: Simply means change. All things change. Do I believe that we descended from apes? That is an emphatic "No". The theory of evolution which is presented by a lot of people is that we started out as a simple organism and got more complex. This never happened, it cannot, because it violates the laws of science. A simple organism is not going to get more complex to the point where it is a human being.

The Bible is by no means complete, and anyone who says it is, is fooling themselves. However it is the word of God to his prophets and we should obey the principles contained therein, as they are the words of life and happiness.

[skalenfehl]

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

with that being said, I believe in genesis, and the transalations of gensis including the garden of eden, for I believe in God, more then I believe in the arm of flesh and how they can decipher dates, based on measuring the decay of certain carbon atoms. that being said, some things, such as the time between joseph and moses, may be off, and some generations may be missing, but what has been spoken by or lord, though his servants the prphets, should be accepted

This is my stance as well. We also have modern day revelation to support the existence of the garden of Eden, etc. I wish there was more evidence to support these things, especially for the Book of Mormon, but that would only serve to bring more people under condemnation for rejecting truths wherever they may be found because it is not uncommon at all for man to reject God in the face of evidence. When one turns from the light, where else is there to go after a 'season' of pleasure?

[KristofferUmfrey]

President George W. Bush said in a recent meeting that he does not believe the Bible is literally true.

My question(s): Do you believe the Bible is literally true? If so, why? If not, why? Does it really matter?

My answer(s):

1) No, the Bible is not literally true. There was no Garden of Eden as literally depicted in the Bible. Man did not spring forth from two humans 6000-6500 years ago. There was no global flood 4000 or so years ago. The Bible starts jiving with historical fact after the Exodus.

2) Yes, it matters. If the foundation is not literally true, then there is trouble when others refer to the foundation as validating their belief structures.

Your comments.

Book of Mormon says their was a Garden, a Flood, and an Exodus. Nuff said.

[mightynancy]

8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

... that being said, some things, such as the time between joseph and moses, may be off, and some generations may be missing, but what has been spoken by or lord, though his servants the prphets, should be accepted

Finding parts of it to be allegorical is not the same as rejecting it. I can believe the Bible to be the word of God and accept it as such completely, and still believe that He was not always literal. Jesus Christ himself was not always literal. I'm not always literal.

[Aesa]

No, I do not believe the Bible is "literally true" in the sense you are saying.

I believe much of what is written in the Bible is allegory and/or Hermetics/Kabalah. We are often "blinded" by translation which is often too literal and does not take into account the gematria that is so important in the Hebrew scriptures.

This is gnosticism.

[checkerboy]

President George W. Bush said in a recent meeting that he does not believe the Bible is literally true.

My question(s): Do you believe the Bible is literally true? If so, why? If not, why? Does it really matter?

My answer(s):

1) No, the Bible is not literally true. There was no Garden of Eden as literally depicted in the Bible. Man did not spring forth from two humans 6000-6500 years ago. There was no global flood 4000 or so years ago. The Bible starts jiving with historical fact after the Exodus.

2) Yes, it matters. If the foundation is not literally true, then there is trouble when others refer to the foundation as validating their belief structures.

Your comments.

Ok so how then do you perceive the Garden of Eden, seeing as you don't believe in the way it was depicted in the Bible. We know that the garden was located somewhere in the Mid-West seeing as Joseph Smith told us that Adam ondi Aman was located in Missouri and that had to be pretty close to where the Garden was.

Also do you dismiss the stories from a variety of cultures that claim to have experienced a global flood?

Whether or not these things are truthful in no way shakes my belief in the Bible. But I can't understand why you pointed out those two stories when there is ample proof of their existence and not, say, the story of Job which many Bible scholars agree may have just been a story told with a moral attached to it. Or even the story of Jonah being in the belly of a whale which many believe is impossible.

[MarginOfError]

Ok so how then do you perceive the Garden of Eden, seeing as you don't believe in the way it was depicted in the Bible. We know that the garden was located somewhere in the Mid-West seeing as Joseph Smith told us that Adam ondi Aman was located in Missouri and that had to be pretty close to where the Garden was.

Also do you dismiss the stories from a variety of cultures that claim to have experienced a global flood?

Whether or not these things are truthful in no way shakes my belief in the Bible. But I can't understand why you pointed out those two stories when there is ample proof of their existence and not, say, the story of Job which many Bible scholars agree may have just been a story told with a moral attached to it. Or even the story of Jonah being in the belly of a whale which many believe is impossible.

Impossible you say? Haven't you ever seen Pinnochio?

[JohnBirchSociety]

Ok so how then do you perceive the Garden of Eden, seeing as you don't believe in the way it was depicted in the Bible. We know that the garden was located somewhere in the Mid-West seeing as Joseph Smith told us that Adam ondi Aman was located in Missouri and that had to be pretty close to where the Garden was.

Also do you dismiss the stories from a variety of cultures that claim to have experienced a global flood?

Whether or not these things are truthful in no way shakes my belief in the Bible. But I can't understand why you pointed out those two stories when there is ample proof of their existence and not, say, the story of Job which many Bible scholars agree may have just been a story told with a moral attached to it. Or even the story of Jonah being in the belly of a whale which many believe is impossible.

I think we can emphatically state that human kind sprang forth from one male human and one female human. Also, we can safely assert that there was a flood of some sort.

However, the Biblical depictions of these events are not literally true.

That was my point.

Yes, there was an "Adam". Just not 6000 or so years ago.

Yes, there was a "Garden". Just not 6000+ years ago.

Yes, there probably was a "Flood". Just not as the Bible depicts it.

[Hemidakota]

I think that it can be interpreted fairly literally.

If we're going to say "but the earth is millions of years old!" and "evolution" ... you know, that sort of thing, well there's a really simple answer to that.

We're just interpreting evidence, we're using your minds to arrive at understanding.

Evolution, Scientific Cosmology, etc, are just theories.

I believe the earth is a lot older than the current solar system.

[Hemidakota]

I think we can emphatically state that human kind sprang forth from one male human and one female human. Also, we can safely assert that there was a flood of some sort.

However, the Biblical depictions of these events are not literally true.

That was my point.

Yes, there was an "Adam". Just not 6000 or so years ago.

Yes, there was a "Garden". Just not 6000+ years ago.

Yes, there probably was a "Flood". Just not as the Bible depicts it.

Just don't say it to LOUD before those who teach at BYU.

[Hemidakota]

Ok so how then do you perceive the Garden of Eden, seeing as you don't believe in the way it was depicted in the Bible. We know that the garden was located somewhere in the Mid-West seeing as Joseph Smith told us that Adam ondi Aman was located in Missouri and that had to be pretty close to where the Garden was.

Also do you dismiss the stories from a variety of cultures that claim to have experienced a global flood?

Whether or not these things are truthful in no way shakes my belief in the Bible. But I can't understand why you pointed out those two stories when there is ample proof of their existence and not, say, the story of Job which many Bible scholars agree may have just been a story told with a moral attached to it. Or even the story of Jonah being in the belly of a whale which many believe is impossible.

Being one of those, who stood upon the remains of Adam's alter, I have to agree with Joseph's location since it is about 90-miles north-east where the tree of life was located. Hopefully, Adam didn't mind if I removed some of those rocks for my own collection.

[Hemidakota]

President George W. Bush said in a recent meeting that he does not believe the Bible is literally true.

My question(s): Do you believe the Bible is literally true? If so, why? If not, why? Does it really matter?

My answer(s):

1) No, the Bible is not literally true. There was no Garden of Eden as literally depicted in the Bible. Man did not spring forth from two humans 6000-6500 years ago. There was no global flood 4000 or so years ago. The Bible starts jiving with historical fact after the Exodus.

2) Yes, it matters. If the foundation is not literally true, then there is trouble when others refer to the foundation as validating their belief structures.

Your comments.

I do believe in both answers, in regards to biblical accounts.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Just don't say it to LOUD before those who teach at BYU.

On this and a plethora of other issues I have spoken publicly while at BYU.

On only one occasion was I told to not repeat what I was saying. I ignored that ignorant advise.

[Hemidakota]

I do applude you for standing up....

[Guest HEthePrimate]

President George W. Bush said in a recent meeting that he does not believe the Bible is literally true.

My question(s): Do you believe the Bible is literally true? If so, why? If not, why? Does it really matter?

My answer(s):

1) No, the Bible is not literally true. There was no Garden of Eden as literally depicted in the Bible. Man did not spring forth from two humans 6000-6500 years ago. There was no global flood 4000 or so years ago. The Bible starts jiving with historical fact after the Exodus.

2) Yes, it matters. If the foundation is not literally true, then there is trouble when others refer to the foundation as validating their belief structures.

Your comments.

Well, for once I agree with President Bush! I don't take everything in the Bible literally. It makes a big difference when trying to interpret the scriptures. If I think something wasn't not meant literally, I'll ask myself what the author was trying to convey with his allegory and why he used that particular one. Also, it matters when trying to discuss the scriptures with other people--if the other party takes the Bible literally, then they and I are operating on different assumptions and our discussion needs to take that into account.

[checkerboy]

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the statements here but one thing I want to bring up is that I find it interesting that we are putting limits on God's power when we say that the things that are recorded couldn't possibly be true. Are we putting our faith in the arm of flesh?

[JohnBirchSociety]

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the statements here but one thing I want to bring up is that I find it interesting that we are putting limits on God's power when we say that the things that are recorded couldn't possibly be true. Are we putting our faith in the arm of flesh?

I think you'd have a good point if we were talking about spiritual things for which we would naturally find no physical proof.

At least for me, I'm talking about physical things which we can approach with the scientific method and plain reason.

For example, The American Revolution actually occurred. It is a physical reality that is not subject to spiritual confirmation. It is physically a real event because it had left vast, undeniable, evidence of it's occurance.

When we look at the evidence before us, there simply is no evidence of a global flood of the magnitude expressed in the Bible, at the time the Bible speaks of it.

In respect to when Adam and Eve left the Garden, becoming the first human progenitors, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary on the account as written in the Bible.

Also, there is no evidence, as one would expect of such a massive migration for a period of 40 years, or the Exodus. Not a single piece of evidence. So, though the conclusion is uncomfortable, the most rational, and simplest of explanations is that it did not occur in the literal sense that the Bible depicts.

These are intellectual matters, as tangible as the American Revolution.

We can also question, intellectually, the Book of Mormon on the same grounds. And let me be clear, I believe the Book of Mormon is historically true. That being said, we can look at the Cumorah battles and see that they would each (Jaredite / Nephite-Lamanite) constitute the largest battles in known human history, with the largest concentration of causulties in known human history. In particular, the final day battle of the Nephit-Lamanites would be the most deadly single-day tally in known human history, even surpassing Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Those types of things, with swords, shields, the provisions need to fight such a thing, would leave a lot of evidence. To date, we've found none. And there is no reason to expect to find any, for we HAVE found evidence of much smaller things that happened a LOT longer ago, in the Americas.

Now, a rational person would take the simplest of explanations and state that such things never actually happened. I believe they did happen. I cannot explain the complete dirth of evidence where there should be plenty. But I know they happened because I know through study and prayer, that the Book of Mormon is historically true.

Hope that helps?

[Traveler]

President George W. Bush said in a recent meeting that he does not believe the Bible is literally true.

My question(s): Do you believe the Bible is literally true? If so, why? If not, why? Does it really matter?

My answer(s):

1) No, the Bible is not literally true. There was no Garden of Eden as literally depicted in the Bible. Man did not spring forth from two humans 6000-6500 years ago. There was no global flood 4000 or so years ago. The Bible starts jiving with historical fact after the Exodus.

2) Yes, it matters. If the foundation is not literally true, then there is trouble when others refer to the foundation as validating their belief structures.

Your comments.

I believe that a person can be as easily lead astray reading the Bible as they can be lead into the ways of G-d reading the Bible. The Pharisees and Charlemagne were both examples of avid students of Biblical scripture that demonstrate association to scripture does not equate to understanding sacred principles of G-d.

As a scientist and a student of sacred things I have yet to understand how a person seeking truth is beguiled by what appears at the surface and not consider looking deeper. I also believe that understanding sacred things have less to do with understanding the ancient societies of man (though such things do reveal truth) as it does understanding the societies of G-d.

I am most disappointed with many that endorse ignorance in tradition implying the wonder of G-d is in the missing logic explaining his divine secrets. Truth is simple when understood correctly and a mystery of confusion to those not connected to reality.

The Traveler

[Heavenguard]

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the statements here but one thing I want to bring up is that I find it interesting that we are putting limits on God's power when we say that the things that are recorded couldn't possibly be true. Are we putting our faith in the arm of flesh?

It's not so much that we're saying it couldn't possibly be true, but that it (likely?) isn't true.

Here's a statement:

I did not kill a man.

Am I saying I couldn't possibly have killed a man? No. I'm not claiming that I never had the ability to, or that I never had the opportunity to, but only that I factually did not kill a man.