Biblical Question of the Day

[usregimechange]

Poll question: Biblical Question of the Day

The bible records several instances of Jesus healing the blind. Mark 8:25: "...Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he looked intently and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly."

In other parts of the Bible the use of the word "blind" takes on a more symbolic meaning:

"Jesus said to (the Pharisees), 'If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, 'We see,' so your sin remains" (John 9:41).

We might take a look at the context for clues as to whether to interpret these verses symbolically or literally.

Yet other parts of the Bible present events in a literal descriptive way and the correct interpretation may still be symbolic (i.e. the dove and the olive branch).

Other portions of the bible describe literal events in history from the perspective of the Hebrews.

What do you believe is the correct interpretation of Jesus healing the blind? Were they physically blind or spiritually blind?

Poll result (39 votes)
Literal, they were physically blind	(3 votes, 8%)	Vote
Symbolic, they were spiritually blind	(7 votes, 18%)	Vote
It depends on the context	(8 votes, 21%)	Vote
Blasphermer! Blasphermer!	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote
It is all myth	(21 votes, 54%)	Vote

[Wonk]

1. Most polls, including this one, should have a "Don't know" option

and an "Other, please explain" option if there's room for them.

imho

[usregimechange]

2. I agree but I like "forced choice" polls sometimes as well.

[Up2Late]

3. Myth is too strong a word, but since there is no "other" choice, that's what I picked.

Most of the bible is Fable, not Myths.

Read: "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Bart D. Ehrman if you have any further doubt.

<http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Cha... >

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. One thing to keep in mind that the writings of early christians

were often political but because they were persecuted by the powers that be, they often wrote in 'code' in order to get their messages out.

In regards to references of Jesus healing the blind, I was assume it was a spiritual healing, rather then a physical one.

[waiting for hope]

5. So true -

It also needs to be pointed out that the Gospels were written (Matthew - consensus answer about 30 years after being the earliest) decades after Jesus was crucified, so who is to say what message and context was being put forth and to what motivation? I see the Bible as a guideline for decent living where the teachings of Christ are concerned. Everything else appears to be rehashing of older myths and legends. A nation was building and defining their identity - who's to say the Hebrew Scriptures were not political as well?

[TygrBright]

7. The Hebrew Scriptures were extremely political...

...especially with regards to the return of exiled scholars, priests, and nobles to Israel after their generations in exile, and the conflicts that arose between the exiles and those who had been left behind.

helpfully,
Bright

[bluerum]

6. I cannot believe, that anyone over the age of 4 would interpret this literally.

[nemo137]

8. Myth, and both.

Like you said, "other parts of the Bible present events in a literal descriptive way and the correct interpretation may still be symbolic." The story is told as if true - the is, it's a story about Jesus literally restoring sight to blind beggars - but itslesson might be about spiritual blindness.