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

I don't see how that's possible. Preachers and their other higher men of faith are still men. They're human and show no signs of being connected to anything of a higher power (and in some cases, as recently has come out in the press more so, do very very very bad things).Putting all that aside, we have people that you're saying the Bible tells us to hold in high regard and trust. How can we -- as people ourselves -- trust other normal everyday people with the understanding of our entire state of being?I wouldn't even trust them with my son or daughter (if I had one). That's not saying anything derogatory about the church, mind you, don't take it the wrong way. My point is, I wouldn't trust ANYONE in such high regard just based on their title. To say that we must be blissfully ignorant in our trust in order to show our faith to God, I just can't get behind.I still have to say if God wants me he needs to show me indisputable evidence. If he is the God I have read about, I don't see any reason why that would be a problem.Am I way off base?

There are always frauds. That doesn't mean there are not true men of God also. I could probably personally name dozens in America with a little exertion, whose books or articles I've read, or sermon tapes I've heard. And that means there must in reality be many more. I'm not asking you to trust anybody without knowing a lot about them. Took me years to find a pastor whose teaching I consider the best. Well that's a straw man for sure. I'd never advocate such a thing. The attitude is, yes. He CAN certainly give such evidence but if He chooses not to for reasons of His own and you stubbornly refuse to investigate the avenues He HAS provided, that's going to be YOUR fault in the end, not His.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-27-2005 12:37 AM

I see. That's not enough for me, personally. I, being but a mortal human, do not understand why He wouldn't just want to show himself as legend has it he has done in the past. However, I do now understand where you're coming from. Thank you for explaining it.This message has been edited by dsv, Wednesday, April 27, 2005 12:47 AM

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.

quote:

---

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

---

I'll go with the metaphor, Schraffie (how you doin', Sweetie? Hope all is well with you), since God knows that there are things inherently harmful, and poisonous snakes are exactly that.There is an account of Paul being bitten by a viper....

quote:

---

Acts 28:3
And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid [them] on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

​

Act 28:4
And when the barbarians saw the [venomous] beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

​

Act 28:5
And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.

​

Act 28:6
Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

---

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.

OK, have it your way. You insist on YOUR meaning of "literal" (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)and YOUR meaning of "interpretation" which allows you to deny that you are interpreting,and YOUR reading of the passage whether it's YOUR meaning of what "literal" means or YOUR meaning of what "allegorical" means,and that's what I knew you'd do.You insist that the snake handler cultists read it "literally" correctly rather than the mainstream church, even though others here have told you they are wrong because that is tempting God,and there's no arguing with you at all.You win.Have a good day.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-27-2005 11:14 AM

I have an idea. I will feed poison to some christians without them knowing it. If they don't die it will prove that it's true.The problem is this - That would provide me with proof of the existance of God. God doesn't like that type of proof and thus will allow the christians to die (because I am tempting him). But that would mean that God was a liar when he said that belief in him would protect them.....So who shall I give the rat poison to first?

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

---

Glad you are well and happy. Am good myself.

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.

---

Well, we do know there are all kinds of nut cases. I saw a man once on TV stick his hand in a bowl of liquid and claim it was acid.
From the ludicrous to the absurd, Schraffie, from the snake handlers to the holy rollers, God loves them all. What he does not do is party with idiots, and drinking a harmful substance is idiotic and asking for it.Take care!
George

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

So who shall I give the rat poison to first?

---

Let Dr. Jekyll be your example.

Except that it's not simply drinking poison. It's reading God's word, in which it is stated that God will protect you, and trusting God to keep him promise.Is that trust idiotic?

---

"You can't expect him to be answering your prayers when he's not real, can you? That's like writing to the characters of a soap opera and expecting a reply, Mr. Silly Sausage!"
-Jane Christie

Well, if it was an acid he'd probably be okay. If it was a base though ...

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

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?

---

I've never said a word about taking the Bible "literally." That's completely your notion. It's to be read in context comparing each part with each other part. You are ignoring the context. 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 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 -- 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.Speaking of adding to the text, it is you who have added the idea of "all" believers. "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. You are reading into it the idea of "all" believers. "Signs will follow them" is far from suggesting "all" and in the context of the WHOLE Bible these powers are clearly the same as the charismatic gifts which are are explicitly said not to be given to everyone but one here, one there, for specific purposes. Tongues, healings, miracles are all listed on the lists of charismatic gifts. And how is that different from reading it literally correctly as I just said? It is you who have misread it as you ignore the context. You ignore the context of the sending out of the first apostles to preach to the pagan world of the time; you ignore the Biblical prohibition against tempting God; you ignore the Biblical context of the specificity of the charismatic gifts etc etc etc. ====No, he simply didn't expect the reader to be so tunnel-visioned or literal minded, but would understand that he wouldn't teach something out of context of the meaning of the entire Bible. Every relevant context for every statement doesn't need to be spelled out or the Bible would be a hundred times bigger than it is. Preachers may spend years preaching on a single book of the Bible because there is so much background and context and implications of it verse by verse that relate to it. NO verse in the Bible stands by itself apart from the rest of the Bible. As I said, you win.