BIBLE HISTORY DAILY

Attitudes Toward the Historical Accuracy of the Bible: Are We Different?

From Strata in the March/April 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review

In the September/October 2014 BAR, we reported on the results of a recent Gallup poll in which more than a thousand American adults were asked to indicate which of three statements best represented their view of the Bible’s historical accuracy. These were the statements:

1. The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.

2. The Bible is the inspired word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally.

3. The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man.

This naturally led us to wonder how BAR readers compare with the Gallup poll reflecting the American population as a whole. Were our readers proportionally different from Americans generally? Were they more heavily literalists, believing that the Bible represented the Word of God? Or did a greater percentage of them regard the Bible as an ancient book of fables, legends and history? Did BAR attract more people with one attitude toward the Bible than another? Were BAR readers more like Americans generally, or did they differ significantly?

So we decided to ask you. We announced our own survey using the same statements that were in the Gallup poll and asked our readers to tell us which statement they most agreed with. More than 3,000 BAR readers responded, over three times the number in the Gallup poll.
bar-bible-poll
The bottom line: In this respect BAR readers are much like the American population as a whole: The percentage of BAR readers who chose the first statement was virtually identical with the American population as a whole. Same for the second statement. A few more people chose the third statement in the BAR poll than in the Gallup poll, but some of this may be attributable to the fact that the Gallup numbers totaled 96 percent, and the BAR numbers totaled 99 percent.

In any event, the BAR readership is much like the population as a whole in its attitudes toward the historicity of the Bible. Both in the Gallup poll and the BAR poll approximately as many believe the Bible is the literal true word of God as believe it is a book of history and legends.

In addition to responding to the BAR poll, 134 of our readers posted comments on the poll. The most common was that the Gallup poll was poorly worded and that it should have had more than three choices. One reader suggested six.

Many readers, forced to choose one answer, complained that their views fell somewhere between 1 and 2 or between 2 and 3. Perhaps BAR readers make more subtle distinctions than the public generally.


“Strata: Are We Different?” was originally published in the March/April 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

FREE ebook: The Holy Bible: A Buyer's Guide 42 different Bible versions, addressing content, text, style and religious orientation.


54 Responses:

  1. Christopher says:

    I’m actually surprised that nearly 80% of Americans recognize some theistic source for the Bible. The atheist and naturalist might not be impressed but overwhelming judgments of the hive mind should not be casually dismissed I think.

  2. Al in Bama says:

    You may be surprised that so many Americans recognize a theistic source for the Bible, but that is simply because you have been fooled by a common narrative; this information has maintained to what has been available over the last two decades.

  3. Rod says:

    The path is narrow.

  4. Michael O'Byrne says:

    I have no doubt that the Bible is the actual word of God and we must take all of it literally!

  5. Arie Uittenbogaard (Abarim Publications) says:

    I’m missing the option: The Bible is a biased translation of something we’ve studied for centuries and still haven’t even scratched the surface of.

  6. Adria says:

    Were the options in the poll presented in the same colours as these results? I think it’s not trivial nor incidental that a particular option is marked in green, while its contrary is in red…

  7. Dave says:

    Another option should be what we call “the Bible” is a collection of Jewish writings which the Christian Church recognizes as important and the writings of the Apostles on the life and work of Jesus and letters to churches dealing with various issues.

  8. John Hicks says:

    The issue is the word Literal. The Bible uses every literary technique available and very effectively. Not all of Scripture is intended to be literal. I asked a friend if he thought that standing on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, did he expect to see an actual 10 horned beast emerge from the waves. Because of the word ‘literal’, he said yes. The Bible is true and accurate in every aspect. Historical events happened exactly as described. Truths are directly from the mind and mouth of God. Visions and symbols are just that. Jesus is exactly who he says He is. Prophetic events will unfold exactly as God has planned. The Bible contains no error.

  9. Carl Barrington says:

    The first two questions are improperly worded. You can believe in the truth of the entire Bible without taking it all “literally”. Some is poetry. Some is written in the apocalyptic genre. It can all be completely true without being “literal”.

  10. Christoph Jungen says:

    Thanks, Carl, that’s exactly what I believe, think and feell to be true to the Bible. But the poll leaves no room for this. To take it “literally” in this sense is to take the texts for what they really are: Some poetry, some mythological, some narrative, some history, some song, some prayer …
    But I fear that in the minds of most “literal” means universally “historical” – and whoever does this does not take it literally, but historically and to project such a view onto the Bible is not to take it serious in whatever form and shape it comes. Who says that God cannot communicate through non-historical stories, even fables and myths?

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


54 Responses:

  1. Christopher says:

    I’m actually surprised that nearly 80% of Americans recognize some theistic source for the Bible. The atheist and naturalist might not be impressed but overwhelming judgments of the hive mind should not be casually dismissed I think.

  2. Al in Bama says:

    You may be surprised that so many Americans recognize a theistic source for the Bible, but that is simply because you have been fooled by a common narrative; this information has maintained to what has been available over the last two decades.

  3. Rod says:

    The path is narrow.

  4. Michael O'Byrne says:

    I have no doubt that the Bible is the actual word of God and we must take all of it literally!

  5. Arie Uittenbogaard (Abarim Publications) says:

    I’m missing the option: The Bible is a biased translation of something we’ve studied for centuries and still haven’t even scratched the surface of.

  6. Adria says:

    Were the options in the poll presented in the same colours as these results? I think it’s not trivial nor incidental that a particular option is marked in green, while its contrary is in red…

  7. Dave says:

    Another option should be what we call “the Bible” is a collection of Jewish writings which the Christian Church recognizes as important and the writings of the Apostles on the life and work of Jesus and letters to churches dealing with various issues.

  8. John Hicks says:

    The issue is the word Literal. The Bible uses every literary technique available and very effectively. Not all of Scripture is intended to be literal. I asked a friend if he thought that standing on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, did he expect to see an actual 10 horned beast emerge from the waves. Because of the word ‘literal’, he said yes. The Bible is true and accurate in every aspect. Historical events happened exactly as described. Truths are directly from the mind and mouth of God. Visions and symbols are just that. Jesus is exactly who he says He is. Prophetic events will unfold exactly as God has planned. The Bible contains no error.

  9. Carl Barrington says:

    The first two questions are improperly worded. You can believe in the truth of the entire Bible without taking it all “literally”. Some is poetry. Some is written in the apocalyptic genre. It can all be completely true without being “literal”.

  10. Christoph Jungen says:

    Thanks, Carl, that’s exactly what I believe, think and feell to be true to the Bible. But the poll leaves no room for this. To take it “literally” in this sense is to take the texts for what they really are: Some poetry, some mythological, some narrative, some history, some song, some prayer …
    But I fear that in the minds of most “literal” means universally “historical” – and whoever does this does not take it literally, but historically and to project such a view onto the Bible is not to take it serious in whatever form and shape it comes. Who says that God cannot communicate through non-historical stories, even fables and myths?

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Sign up for Bible History Daily
to get updates!
Send this to a friend