.
From Lifeway research
source
As a percentage of the 48% of Americans who believe the Bible is the word of god, this means that only 21% (about 1/5) of all Americans agree the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.
Boy, from the way Christianity is touted in the USA I would have figured the percentage would be much higher. How about you, does this seem about right?
.
Only 1 out of 5 Americans agree the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.
Moderator: Moderators
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Only 1 out of 5 Americans agree the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.
Post #31Does it indicate the date of the survey? I didn't see it if it did.Miles wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:23 pm .
From Lifeway research
source
As a percentage of the 48% of Americans who believe the Bible is the word of god, this means that only 21% (about 1/5) of all Americans agree the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.
Boy, from the way Christianity is touted in the USA I would have figured the percentage would be much higher. How about you, does this seem about right?
.
With the failing of the education system of the USA, this doesn't surprise me, though I do find it disappointing.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14000
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Only 1 out of 5 Americans agree the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.
Post #32No doubt there is identifiable reason as to why this is the case.
Those that do claim connection with "Jesus" and are not included in today's bible, are generally regarded as false/fake/heretical/etc...by those claiming the bible is the only source of genuine material about Christ...
Generally speaking, it appears to be that most denominations of Christian Thinking is an attack on the character of any others who are not of said denomination - so they attack one anothers characters.Sure, but one has to wonder if these accusations are anything more than an attack on character rather than a genuine address of the issue you identified above.
Indeed, Christianity evolved into a device which attacks the individuals character and depends upon this as a means of fillings it collective ranks.
Even most of those who claim that Christ is "The word of God" and not the bible, still rely on the bible for any and all information to do with Christ and tend to reject outside-of-the-bible sources.
Then one could add "Do you agree that the bible also contains untruthful information on Christ"?This is another problem, however, rejecting the assertion that the bible claims for itself that it is the word of God does not mean one must reject the bible as an authoritative source on matters related to Christ.
For example, a conversation like this:
"Do you agree that the bible claims to be the Word of God?"
'No.'
"Do you agree that the bible contains truthful information about Christ"
'Yes'
Which I think is identifying the reason as to why those other sources are rejected - because these are thought to be untruthful information re Christ, whereas the bible is regarded as having all truthful information about Christ.
Thus the bible is - for all intent and purpose 'the word of god' - for such who believe it is the only source of truthful information about Christ - whether they deny that or not.
- Paul of Tarsus
- Banned
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 150 times
Re: Only 1 out of 5 Americans agree the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.
Post #33In other words you have no case for Christ being the "word of God." Understood.tam wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 11:17 pm Peace to you,
[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #27]
I was not 'making a case'; I was just pointing out that a) the bible does not claim to BE the Word of God; and that b) the bible states that Christ is the Word of God. You can look those things up for yourself.
You know (from past conversations) that I do not expect anyone to take my word for anything.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Only 1 out of 5 Americans agree the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.
Post #34Don't know when the survey was taken, but the publishing date in the link I provided is Oct 28, 2014. And the lack of a survey date doesn't surprise me either. As I said in post 14nobspeople wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 9:30 amDoes it indicate the date of the survey? I didn't see it if it did.Miles wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:23 pm .
From Lifeway research
source
As a percentage of the 48% of Americans who believe the Bible is the word of god, this means that only 21% (about 1/5) of all Americans agree the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.
Boy, from the way Christianity is touted in the USA I would have figured the percentage would be much higher. How about you, does this seem about right?
.
With the failing of the education system of the USA, this doesn't surprise me, though I do find it disappointing.
................"My apologies to everyone for posting such a questionable OP."
.
Re: Only 1 out of 5 Americans agree the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.
Post #35Much of the Bible is not credible, and beggars belief. Moderate Christians don't believe it to be 100% accurate, thank goodness.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 7956
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
- Has thanked: 931 times
- Been thanked: 3484 times
Re: Only 1 out of 5 Americans agree the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.
Post #36It's all a bit arguable, isn't it? Haven't we seen the Believers shrug off any Nasties in the OT with 'Jesus made everything new'. Not even a Bible literalist Believer has to accept everything in the Bible, in the sense of some of the old stuff being (morally, at least) Not wholly accurate.
But reading the topic as factually accurate, the stickler for the 'cover -to -cover' believer is Genesis. Which is what the evolution debate is all about. But about half the Christians I have debated have been willing to say that 'Evolution' (the scientific explanation) is correct and the Bible has to be interpreted to fit the science. For example, the earth is not a flat 'circle' (heb. 'chwug') but a 'ball' (Heb 'dur'). Nevertheless, ignoring the Hebrew, it is argued that the Bible really means 'ball' and few insist that the earth (of all the planetary bodies) is flat.
I have seen others that accept the 14 -15 billion years age of the universe, rather than a literal 6 days. Then is Genesis wrong? oh, no. you merely take 14 billion years and divide it into 7, so each Biblical 'Day' is 2 billion years, and the less said about 'Light and dark; morning and evening', with sun and moon to mark them, the better.
But it isn't just Genesis, of course. We have factual errors in OT prophecy. We get the prophecy of the destruction of Babylon. I suppose that not many Christians doubt that one, but only, I suppose, because it doesn't get discussed as much as Genesis. But Babylon wasn't destroyed. Not in any meaningful sense. It continued as the capital of the Persian satrapy of Babylon, and Alexander made it the capital of his Empire. It continued as a capital city into the Roman period until the Sassanids moved it to Ctesiphon. That hardly works as God's smiting of a city that had troubled His people.
The prophecy of Tyre doesn't fare any better. The implication is that Alexander would destroy Tyre and it would exist no more. But the fact is that it was patched up, and one of Alexander's successors had to have another go at it. Jesus went there (so the Book tells us) and so did Paul, I believe. It exists today, folks, and is the port of 'Sur' in Lebanon, as I recall.
As a matter of fact, the account of the Siege of Jerusalem as in the Bible doesn't look too good, either. Certainly the Siege is historical as Assyrian records confirm it. Hezekiah was persuaded into a coalition of subject nations to throw off the Assyrian rulership. Sennacherib took his army and beat each rebel nation one after the other. Then he came for the Hebrews. First the city of Lacheish. The Assyrian king dedicated a series of reliefs showing how he took that city. Clearly, taking it was a matter of pride for him. Odd that the Bible says almost nothing about it. There is One reference to a commander coming from there to Jerusalem.
Because Jerusalem was the Tough one. Hezekiah had put a lot of effort into fortifications and the Assyrians did not find it easy. The Bible claims that God struck the Assyrians and Jerusalem was saved. But the Assyrian account says different. The 'prisms' claim that Hezikiah surrendered, agreed to become a vassal and paid tribute. Now, the Bible apologists may dismiss that as a propaganda lie, but I rather see it as Sennacherib having to explain why he had to come to terms rather than flatten the place. The Jews had put up such a struggle that he had to do a deal. That has the ring of truth for me. God smiting the Assyrians so that the Jews didn't have to submit to anyone (but God) doesn't.
But reading the topic as factually accurate, the stickler for the 'cover -to -cover' believer is Genesis. Which is what the evolution debate is all about. But about half the Christians I have debated have been willing to say that 'Evolution' (the scientific explanation) is correct and the Bible has to be interpreted to fit the science. For example, the earth is not a flat 'circle' (heb. 'chwug') but a 'ball' (Heb 'dur'). Nevertheless, ignoring the Hebrew, it is argued that the Bible really means 'ball' and few insist that the earth (of all the planetary bodies) is flat.
I have seen others that accept the 14 -15 billion years age of the universe, rather than a literal 6 days. Then is Genesis wrong? oh, no. you merely take 14 billion years and divide it into 7, so each Biblical 'Day' is 2 billion years, and the less said about 'Light and dark; morning and evening', with sun and moon to mark them, the better.
But it isn't just Genesis, of course. We have factual errors in OT prophecy. We get the prophecy of the destruction of Babylon. I suppose that not many Christians doubt that one, but only, I suppose, because it doesn't get discussed as much as Genesis. But Babylon wasn't destroyed. Not in any meaningful sense. It continued as the capital of the Persian satrapy of Babylon, and Alexander made it the capital of his Empire. It continued as a capital city into the Roman period until the Sassanids moved it to Ctesiphon. That hardly works as God's smiting of a city that had troubled His people.
The prophecy of Tyre doesn't fare any better. The implication is that Alexander would destroy Tyre and it would exist no more. But the fact is that it was patched up, and one of Alexander's successors had to have another go at it. Jesus went there (so the Book tells us) and so did Paul, I believe. It exists today, folks, and is the port of 'Sur' in Lebanon, as I recall.
As a matter of fact, the account of the Siege of Jerusalem as in the Bible doesn't look too good, either. Certainly the Siege is historical as Assyrian records confirm it. Hezekiah was persuaded into a coalition of subject nations to throw off the Assyrian rulership. Sennacherib took his army and beat each rebel nation one after the other. Then he came for the Hebrews. First the city of Lacheish. The Assyrian king dedicated a series of reliefs showing how he took that city. Clearly, taking it was a matter of pride for him. Odd that the Bible says almost nothing about it. There is One reference to a commander coming from there to Jerusalem.
Because Jerusalem was the Tough one. Hezekiah had put a lot of effort into fortifications and the Assyrians did not find it easy. The Bible claims that God struck the Assyrians and Jerusalem was saved. But the Assyrian account says different. The 'prisms' claim that Hezikiah surrendered, agreed to become a vassal and paid tribute. Now, the Bible apologists may dismiss that as a propaganda lie, but I rather see it as Sennacherib having to explain why he had to come to terms rather than flatten the place. The Jews had put up such a struggle that he had to do a deal. That has the ring of truth for me. God smiting the Assyrians so that the Jews didn't have to submit to anyone (but God) doesn't.
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1129 times
- Been thanked: 729 times
Re: Only 1 out of 5 Americans agree the Bible is 100% accurate in all that it teaches.
Post #37No it doesn't actually, though I admit this is a nitpick.
The study ignores the people who think Lobster Manuel or some other collection of mundane people wrote the Bible and that it happens to be 100% accurate anyway - people who think that the Bible is the word of man, but nevertheless accurate.
There aren't likely to be such people, but I feel that for logic's sake this ought to be pointed out.
A stronger objection that probably has some truth to it but would be harder to prove is that there's likely a scare-factor where people are being scared off from answering yes to 100% accurate because they think someone is asking who is going to use the study to prove that Christians are against homosexuality. Basically, they think some progressive university is doing the study and that the follow-up question is going to be, "Well then, why do you hate gay people?"