Is this Bible verse about believers and poison to be taken literally?

To any and all Biblical literalists here (especially Faith):Should the following verses be taken literally, especially the bolded bit? It very clearly says that anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah will be able to drink any deadly thing without coming to any harm.It also very clearly says that believers will be able to heal sick people simply by touching them.If we are to take these statements literally, then why isn't it common knowledge that Christians are immune to poison? Also, why don't we see real, undeniable faith healing by believers instead of that fraudulent huxster stuff?I've asked this question a bunc of times and have been completely ignored.I thought it might finally get some attention if it had it's own thread.Faith and Belief, please.

Well, right, I can accept that interpretation easily.I want to hear from the people who say that they take the Bible as 100% literally true.

Well, Deuteronomy in the OT and the passage I am quoting is from the NT.Wouldn't most Christian Biblical Literalists give more weight to the NT?

quote:

---

Shraff, there aren't any serpents in Britain, except adders which are hard to find.

---

I was actually most interested in the ability to drink any deadly thing without harm.

quote:

---

I will answer your question if you answer my questions; Should I actively seek a serpent or pray for an ill person?

---

Well, why not both?

quote:

---

Is it God who heals or me?

---

I don't know.

quote:

---

If it was I that could heal, then I would go and lay hands on everyone, but I don't have the faith or courage in myself.

---

But all you need, according to the Bible, is belief that Jesus is the Messiah to be able to lay hands on people to heal them, and also to drink poison without harm.

quote:

---

If these signs aren't abundantly clear, does it negate our faith and belief, or does it negate God, knowing what God says about doubt?

---

I don't know, it's your Bible, not mine.Anyway, I thought you didn't take the Bible as literally true.

quote:

---

You ask why, as in - what is the conclusion. let me know what your conclusion is then.

---

Well, clearly, if the passage is to be taken as literally true, believers should be able to do all of these things.

Mike, what does this passage say that believers will be able to do?

quote:

---

It says many things will believers do.

---

No, that passage refers only to the drinking of deadly things and the laying on of hands to cure the ill.

quote:

---

Does it say one believer shall accomplish them all?

---

It says that these kinds of acts are how people will be able to identify people as Christians. Proof, as it were. This seems to say to me that at least some of the Christian preachers and priests should be able to drink poison without any harm, even if the followers are exempted.Of course, Mark 16 is pretty clear that these signs would follow those who believe, not just preachers.

quote:

---

DOes it say it is a law that one believer must complete these tasks when assigned as stumbling blocks by none-believers?

---

No, but they are supposed to be able to be done by believers. Surely, we should see some centuries-long tradition of "deadly thing-drinking" among believers, continuing up to the present, if this was something that was literally true.Same for the laying on of hands to heal illness. Surely, you wouldn't not cure someone simply because an unbeliever asked you to.Anyway, these were supposed to be proofs: I hardly think that these abilities were meant to be hidden. They were meant to impress non-believers and convert them to this new religion.I would convert right now if I saw a couple of Christians drink bleach or drain cleaner and walk away uninjured.

quote:

---

I believe many have done all these things, as testimonies have reached my ears. Even Paul was poisoned, yet came to no harm).

---

Yeah, yeah, more "I heard it someplace that X really happened".I want to see it for myself, not be assured that it happened but can't be shown now.So, mike, you basically dodged the question. What does the passage say that believers can do? I see three things. What are they?

What should believers be able to do according to that passage, mike?

What does the passage say that believers should be able to do, mike?What does the bible say?

quote:

---

The problem with this question is that like so many other challenges to the Bible, the challenger has a specific way of understanding the verse being challenged, and is likely to hold onto it through endless attempts to give the orthodox understanding of it.

---

Well, no, actually I don't have a specific way of understanding the passage in question at all.I am more than willing to take the passage as allegory or metaphor or symbolism, rather than as a literal truth.However, the OP specifically requests comment from those, like you, who have stated that they believe the entire Bible to be literally true.A straight reading of those passages is quite clear to me.If you have to "interpret" the passages, then you are not taking them at face value. You are not taking them as literally true.

quote:

---

You are sure it is saying that ALL Christians ALWAYS will exhibit these immunities to dangers,

---

No, I'm clearly not.I am simply taking the Bible at it's face value where it says: and The Bible makes it sound as though the believers would be generally known to do these things. That's how people would know that the Lord was with them.

quote:

---

and that since all obviously don't, the passage is false.

---

It isn't false if you don't take it literally.

quote:

---

I don't relish having to argue with you about that meaning of it through 300 posts of a thread.

---

I think the meaning of it is very, very straightforward if one takes the passage at face value and considers it literally true.If one needs to "explain the meaning" of the passage, is one really taking the Bible as literally true anymore?Isn't that commonly known as "interpreting", not "taking as literally true?"

quote:

---

I don't see the passage as promising anything but the occasional manifestation of God's power as needed to protect those who took the gospel into the world,

---

The above passage says that the signs are meant to confirm the word of the Lord to the people the believers are preaching to.The signs are meant to be proof that the Lord is with them.A literal reading of the passage clearly says this, and there are sects of Christians in the Southers US who also take it quite literally because they actually do pick up poisonous snakes because of the very passage in question. [quote] Nowhere does the passage exclude any believer from these abilities: However, I am willing to concede that only some believers, such as those who actually preach the Gospel to others, will be able to show these signs to show that the Lord is with them.But we don't see this in real life.Either none of them are real believers, or this part of the Bible cannot be taken as literally true and needs to be taken as metaphor.

quote:

---

The apostolic generation exhibited many powers for the purpose of propagating the gospel that gradually fell away as the churches got established.

---

That's not what the Bible says. You are adding to it instead of taking it as literally true. This is called "interpretation".I have no problem with interpretation of the Bible, but then again, I do not claim to take it literally like you do.

I'm doing well, PG, thank you for asking. How about yourself?

quote:

---

I'll go with the metaphor

---

I think it works well as metaphor, although I think the writers of the passage thought it was litterally the case that believers would be able to drink any deadly thing without harm.

quote:

---

OK, have it your way. You insist on YOUR meaning of "literal"

---

I'm sorry.I thought that a "literal" reading of the Bible was one in which it's words are taken at face value, that the facts, people, places, events, etc. all actually existed or happened.For instance, a "literal" reading of one of the creation stories requires (as I understand the term) that we literally accept that Adam was the first human and was created by God out of dust, that Eve was really created from one of his ribs, etc.I look at the passage from Mark 16 about what believers will be able to do, and if I read it the same way I read the creation story, I should think that believers will be able to drink any deadly thing without harm, should be able to heal the sick by the laying on of hands, etc., and that these signs are meant to be evidence to unbelievers that the Lord is with them.So, am I correct in assuming that your definition of taking the bible "literally" means that sometimes you take it at face value, such as with the creation stories, but sometimes you do some interpretation and adding to the text?

quote:

---

(which I've never used to describe my own beliefs by the way, often having complained about Bible challengers' insisting on a kind of "literal" meaning that orthodox Christianity doesn't accept)

---

What's "orthodiox Christianity?"Which bible does it use? Who's interpretation does it follow?

quote:

---

and YOUR meaning of "interpretation" which allows you to deny that you are interpreting,

---

Show me how I am deviating from the text of Mark 16. Show me how I am adding to or taking away from the words of the Bible.

quote:

---

You insist that the snake handler cultists read it "literally" correctly

---

No, no, no.This has nothing to do with if the interpretation of Mark 16 is "correct" or not.The issue is if a straightforward reading of Mark 16, without adding or subtracting anything to the text, means what it says.Furthermore, do those who claim to take every word of the Bible at face value, or as "literally" correct and true, believe a straightforward reading of Mark 16, without "explaining" anything afterwords about "what the passage really means".

quote:

---

rather than the mainstream church, even though others here have told you they are wrong because that is tempting God,

---

Look, Mark 16 says that believers will be able to do these things, and the reason is to show unbelievers that the Lord is with them.If it's wrong to "tempt the lord", then Mark was wrong to say that believers should do such things, right?

quote:

---

and there's no arguing with you at all.

---

Well, there's a difference between not arguing with me and not being able to adequately address my points, isn't there?

quote:

---

I've never said a word about taking the Bible "literally." That's completely your notion.

---

Oh, I see. Perhaps I've been mistaken.But, just to be clear, could you please indicate if I am clear on your position as I state it below, as I did in my previous post to you:

quote:

---

It's to be read in context comparing each part with each other part. You are ignoring the context.

---

So, if I were to ask you about the creation story, (the 6 days and all), would you say that taking such a story "in context" would mean that it is meant to be taken as allegory rather than as an actual account of how the Earth, sun, and moon, etc., came about?Considering the pre-scientific, primitive nomadic tribal "context" in which the people who conceived the Genesis creation story lived, wouldn't it be more appropriate to also consider this "context" when deciding if the Bible is "literally", factually accurate WRT how and when the Earth was created?

quote:

---

The context is the spreading of the gospel, "Go ye into all the world..." Historically the first evangelists DID experience the powers predicted as Matthew Henry noted.

---

There are "reports" of many things, including fire the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot.

quote:

---

There are reports that they STILL do as a matter of fact in some remote parts of the world where missionaries have taken the gospel, but no longer in the "civilized" world any more as the gospel has been preached here

---

The Bible doesn't say that these signs would follow only those who go out into remote parts of the world to preach the gospel.You are rationalizing why we don't see such signs all the time, everywhere, and you are doing this by adding a qualifier to what the chapter says.Or, are these fantastic abilities only displayed when nobody is watching, and so independent verification is never possible? Is that why it only happens in "remote" areas?I would think that missionaries in densely-populated areas would be the best to give such powers to, because it would reach the most people and convert many more people at once.

quote:

---

-- although the Charismatics claim it's still going on here. However, I've been in their groups and it seems to me there's very little of it that is even possibly authentic.

---

Are the ones that can do it true believers and the ones that can't, not?Or, are they all wrong, just like Mark, for tempting God?

quote:

---

Speaking of adding to the text, it is you who have added the idea of "all" believers.

---

I told you specifically that I did not say "all".I said: In my message to mike the wiz, I conceded that since the passage speaks of people who go out ans spread the Word, that perhaps only preachers and priests would have such abilities. I also conceded that not every single one would, but surely it is reasonable to think that clergy, as a group, would have been generally known all over the world to be able to do these things.

quote:

---

"Orthodox" means "correct," or "authorized." The churches I'm referring to embrace most of all the Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms back to the early Church. Most orthodox/traditional/Bible-believing churches compare many versions of the Bible to get at the best rendering of any passage, though some prefer the KJV or NKJV and some prefer the NASB as a rule I've personally observed.

---

Are all of these churches identical in what they accept as "orthodox" interpretation of the bible?

quote:

---

NO verse in the Bible stands by itself apart from the rest of the Bible.

---

And no religious book, including the Bible, stands by itself apart from the culture and previous religions it came from. Indeed, neither does it stand apart from the level of knowledge of the natural world of it's writers.All of these things must be taken into context when interpreting the Bible correctly, would you agree?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-28-2005 09:47 AM

quote:

---

Yeah it IS extremely silly of you to think you can decide the meaning of a text that you don't believe in or care a fig about, same as Ms. Schrafinator, against the understanding of centuries of believers in it.

---

I'm not, and have never been, talking about the "correct" interpretation of Mark 16.There are those who take it as written (literally).If you are not one of them, then OK.However, then we come to the problem of why it is that you interpret some passages and use the context of modern knowledge and history such as with Mark 16, but hold rigidly to the face-value, as-written, literal meaning of others, such as the creation accounts in Genesis.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-28-2005 10:08 AM

quote:

---

It always means what it says, but you have to take it in context and you can't assume you can tell what it means unless you know the context.

---

You mean like the creation stories in Genesis need to be taken in context, and not as literally how things happened?

Great post, Faith.The single non-substantive sentence in DBlevins' post is the one you respond to.