The Bible: Literal Fact

[keshka]

Just throwing this one out there...

How many here accept the Bible as the 100% literal truth: i.e. actually happenned?

For myself, I split various bits of the Bible into two categories:

1) The Literal Truth: in other words, stuff that actually historically happenned. God created the Universe, Jesus was His son, born of a virgin, who sacrificed himself for the sins of mankind.

2) The non-Literal Truth: in other words, the bits of the Bible from which we learn, and take a message, but is presented to us as a story, an allegory. For example, I accept stuff like evolution, that the Earth is billions of years old, etc... but because people 2000 years ago didn't know about the science that we do today, it was phrased in terms that the ancient people could understand... almost as if the story has been simplified somewhat but the truth is there underneath, if not in the literal sense.

So God created the universe and the Earth by causing the Big Bang and setting natural selection in motion so that single cells might one day evolve into His image, at least that is what I believe.

But speaking to other people in my church, it's become clear to me that different Christians have different ideas as to which bits of the Bible go into each category.

For example, I think that the Noah's Ark story actually happenned, but some of my friends think that part is just a story - I'm met with responses such as "How did the Kangaroos get from Mount Ararat all the way to Australia? " and "What did the herbivores eat, considering the Flood must've killed all the plants?" They say that it's only a story, meaningful all the same (perhaps as a warning that God might do the same thing again if we are not faithful, or as an uplifting message... that there is always hope - in the form of a dove - even when things seem really bad).

So yeah, what do you guys think? Is all of the Bible literally true? Can we accept both science and religion?

And if some of the Bible is non-literal, how are we to determine which bits are real and which are just stories? Does it matter, as long as we accept the underlying meaning and message?

This is a subject that's really important to me, so I would appreciate your thoughts. And please be gentle on me, I get enough grief from friends in my Bible Studies classes!

Peace and love,

K.

 

[jimmydiggs]

The question and the post don't seem to align well.

I believe the bible to be inerrent, if that is what is meant.

I believe certain things to be parable, and others to be literal. I take the Historical-Grammatical-Hermeneutic approach, assuming I understand it well.

 

[Strangelove]

Unless verses are clearly allegory or metaphor then they are literal truth.

Much prophecy includes metaphorical language.

But when God says this is how it happened, like in Genesis....then thats how it happened.

 

[Laodicea]

Just throwing this one out there...

How many here accept the Bible as the 100% literal truth: i.e. actually happenned?

For myself, I split various bits of the Bible into two categories:

1) The Literal Truth: in other words, stuff that actually historically happenned. God created the Universe, Jesus was His son, born of a virgin, who sacrificed himself for the sins of mankind.

2) The non-Literal Truth: in other words, the bits of the Bible from which we learn, and take a message, but is presented to us as a story, an allegory. For example, I accept stuff like evolution, that the Earth is billions of years old, etc... but because people 2000 years ago didn't know about the science that we do today, it was phrased in terms that the ancient people could understand... almost as if the story has been simplified somewhat but the truth is there underneath, if not in the literal sense.

So God created the universe and the Earth by causing the Big Bang and setting natural selection in motion so that single cells might one day evolve into His image, at least that is what I believe.

But speaking to other people in my church, it's become clear to me that different Christians have different ideas as to which bits of the Bible go into each category.

For example, I think that the Noah's Ark story actually happenned, but some of my friends think that part is just a story - I'm met with responses such as "How did the Kangaroos get from Mount Ararat all the way to Australia? " and "What did the herbivores eat, considering the Flood must've killed all the plants?" They say that it's only a story, meaningful all the same (perhaps as a warning that God might do the same thing again if we are not faithful, or as an uplifting message... that there is always hope - in the form of a dove - even when things seem really bad).

So yeah, what do you guys think? Is all of the Bible literally true? Can we accept both science and religion?

And if some of the Bible is non-literal, how are we to determine which bits are real and which are just stories? Does it matter, as long as we accept the underlying meaning and message?

This is a subject that's really important to me, so I would appreciate your thoughts. And please be gentle on me, I get enough grief from friends in my Bible Studies classes!

Peace and love,

K.

The earth was created in 6 days not billions of years God could have done it in an instant but, He chose 6 days.
Exodus 20:11
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Also faith is based on evidence
Hebrews 11:1
(1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

There is evidence that the earth was created quickly, there is evidence of a worldwide flood. We may not get 100% proof but, there is enough evidence to base our faith.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

I believe that God's figurative is literal. Think about it. If God, who never lies, gives a parable, then it is figurative for something in reality. In order for God not the be lieing, the figurative must equal to or be equivalent to the reality. For example, if God says you will burn in Hell, it is true even if you think it's figurative. Because something in Hell is compared to burning and it has a reality. If you take it figurative it is still true. If God says there is darkness in Hell, it is true. If you take it figurative then it's still true and it's still darkness. Figurative flames would still burn you, and figurative darkness would still be dark.

 

[keshka]

Thank you Jimmy, and Strangelove, and Laodicea, and Jonathan, for answering.

My mother says that, when the Bible says that Earth was made in six days, that a Day for God isn't the same as a Day for mankind. So it's possible that six days for God is really 5 billion years from our point of view.

Which means that both the Bible and science can coexist in a good way.

Look at it this way. God creates Light before he creates the stars. Now, the the only light that existed before the stars was God himself, and the Big Bang. So you have Genesis accurately describing the Big Bang, thousands of years before scientists proposed it.

Isn't that a sure sign that both religion AND science can coexist?

 

[keshka]

I believe that God's figurative is literal. Think about it. If God, who never lies, gives a parable, then it is figurative for something in reality. In order for God not the be lieing, the figurative must equal to or be equivalent to the reality. For example, if God says you will burn in Hell, it is true even if you think it's figurative. Because something in Hell is compared to burning and it has a reality. If you take it figurative it is still true. If God says there is darkness in Hell, it is true. If you take it figurative then it's still true and it's still darkness. Figurative flames would still burn you, and figurative darkness would still be dark.

I love this post. This is brilliant. This says everything to me.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

 

[Abiding]

the parts i like and am good at are truth
the parts i dont like or am bad at are figurative/symbolic/allegory/myth

well not really, but it seems to work for my neighbor.

 

[journey41]

[

quote=keshka;555199]Just throwing this one out there...

How many here accept the Bible as the 100% literal truth: i.e. actually happenned?

Everything recorded in the OT is a record of history. The flood really happened. They have even found the ark In Mt Ararat (Turkey) and have recently been given permission to investigate it and make a documentary. I will be surprised if this documentary is ever 'aired'

Science always tries to disprove the existence of God. You can either believe them that the earth started with a big bang or you can believe the written word that God said "let there be" and it was so.

All symbols used in the OT such as beasts, bears, lions, goats, rams & horns are used for prophecy. The events prophesied are real. Except God doesn't lay it out there plainly for us, he wants us to search the meanings of his symbols.

In the New testament, parables are used also. But the whole new testament is not a complete parable. We have to decipher. The parables are pretty obvious.

Symbols are still being used in the NT. Satan is not really a dragon, but God depicts him as one. Nations are not really beasts, but God depicts them as such. Jesus is not really a lamb, but was sacrificed like one. We are not really sheep, but we follow our shepherd like one and so forth.
For myself, I split various bits of the Bible into two categories:

1) The Literal Truth: in other words, stuff that actually historically happenned. God created the Universe, Jesus was His son, born of a virgin, who sacrificed himself for the sins of mankind.

2) The non-Literal Truth: in other words, the bits of the Bible from which we learn, and take a message, but is presented to us as a story, an allegory. For example, I accept stuff like evolution, that the Earth is billions of years old, etc... but because people 2000 years ago didn't know about the science that we do today, it was phrased in terms that the ancient people could understand... almost as if the story has been simplified somewhat but the truth is there underneath, if not in the literal sense.

You accept that because the world teaches us in school that we get our information from books and learned men. If it's in a text book and in a school then it must be fact. They teach you evolution in school and if you dont answer correctly in an exam you will fail. But that doesn't make what they are saying the truth...If science accepted that God existed, then they would loose their jobs and positions.

So God created the universe and the Earth by causing the Big Bang and setting natural selection in motion so that single cells might one day evolve into His image, at least that is what I believe.

That is what you have been taught.

But speaking to other people in my church, it's become clear to me that different Christians have different ideas as to which bits of the Bible go into each category.

For example, I think that the Noah's Ark story actually happenned, but some of my friends think that part is just a story - I'm met with responses such as "How did the Kangaroos get from Mount Ararat all the way to Australia? " and "What did the herbivores eat, considering the Flood must've killed all the plants?"

Have you seen how quick grass grows back after a flood?

So yeah, what do you guys think? Is all of the Bible literally true? Can we accept both science and religion?

Some scientists have discovered that there must be a God who designed all this. But alot of these scientists have mysteriously disappeared or have died in suspicious circumstances.

And if some of the Bible is non-literal, how are we to determine which bits are real and which are just stories? Does it matter, as long as we accept the underlying meaning and message?

Yes it does matter. God wants us to be inquisitive and find all the answers. Even if it takes a lifetime. Dont throw it in the too hard basket. Keep feeding on the truth so you can answer a question correctly when someone asks you anything.

This is a subject that's really important to me, so I would appreciate your thoughts. And please be gentle on me, I get enough grief from friends in my Bible Studies classes!

Peace and love,

Your welcome

 

[Subtronik]

The Bible is 100% truth, period.

 

[Slepsog4]

We are not judges of the Scripture. Jesus, the Son of God, endorsed the book of Genesis and its major accounts -- creation, flood, etc. as well as the account of Jonah.

Trying to discount the accounts as allegorical is a faithless compromise. They are historical narratives.

 

[Strangelove]

Thank you Jimmy, and Strangelove, and Laodicea, and Jonathan, for answering.

My mother says that, when the Bible says that Earth was made in six days, that a Day for God isn't the same as a Day for mankind. So it's possible that six days for God is really 5 billion years from our point of view.

Which means that both the Bible and science can coexist in a good way.

Look at it this way. God creates Light before he creates the stars. Now, the the only light that existed before the stars was God himself, and the Big Bang. So you have Genesis accurately describing the Big Bang, thousands of years before scientists proposed it.

Isn't that a sure sign that both religion AND science can coexist?

God spoke the supernatural light into existence AFTER He created the heavens and the Earth, so that could not have been the 'big bang'.

That theory was developed by oral traditions of apostate hebrews to circumnavigate Gods Word.

 

[BobPage]

Obviously the bible is not 100% true if you intepret all of it literally. But if you interpret that some parts are metaphorical than it's meaning can have different interpretations. That means anyone can use the Bible to prove their point and no truth can ever really be found. This ruins the bible's function as anyone can pervert it.

 

[JohnChingford2007]

I enclose a video link which is an excellent argument for 6 days creation. It is a BBC "hardtalk" video with creationist John Mackay.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/06/hardtalk/mackay06sep.ram

You will not be taken directly to the video, but will need to click on your download. It is perfectly safe. I have tried it many times.

Here is a second video. It has John Mackay discussing with Richard Dawkins the evidence of a young Earth. Very convincing and very easy to listen to.

Richard Dawkins interviews creationist John Mackay (Part 1 of 2) - YouTube

Bear in mind that if you introduce billions and Millions of years of death and decay on planet Earth then what is the garden of Eden all about. It says that "everything was good". It was only after sin came into the world that death and decay started (according to Genesis) and in the very same passage we have mention of the Messiah who would conquer sin in the future. If you allegorise away Genesis 1 and 2 you destroy the whole gospel. The video plus answers in genesis website will explain this much better. The aig site is excellent for explaining how the global flood rebuts virtually every question about evolution.

 

[MissCris]

I take much of the Bible literally. When God says he created the earth, plants, animals, and people in 6 days, I take that to mean SIX DAYS, not thousands or millions of years through evolution. Should we really question whether or not GOD is capable of doing all of that in literally only 6 days? Should we question whether or not God is capable of any of the fantastic things the Bible tells us he's done, or will do?

When we doubt the parts of the Bible that tell us of something God did, then it stands to reason that we are doubting God Himself, unless you're of the school of thought that believes the Bible is nothing more than a story book to scare us into behaving ourselves...in which case, you've got bigger problems than just doubting God's Word.

Obviously some parts aren't literal, such as in Revelation. I think that has more to do with the writer lacking appropriate words to describe the wonders he sees than that what he talks about being metaphorical. When the Bible tells us about something that will happen in the future, the writers simply didn't have the knowledge of future technology in order to be able to describe such things as a bomb, or a gun. They can describe death, fire, swords, but not nuclear weapons, solely because they hadn't been invented yet.

 

[JohnChingford2007]

Hi MissCris

Amen!

The Bible always tells us if passages are not to be taken literally. If it does not tell us, then IT IS literal. For example, in Revelation, we have many explanations of Revelation in other books of the Bible such as Daniel and Matthew 24 (and many other places). Jesus usually told us the meaning of parables. Therefore, even parables (their meanings) are to be taken literally.

By the way, in the original manuscripts of the OT (hebrew) if a specific number is used with "day" it actually means LITERAL days, not theoretical days. I am not an expert in Hebrew, but those who are have told me that Genesis 1, is definitely referring to 24 hour days because of the way the verses are put together. This is further illustrated here Kids Feedback: How Long Was the Creation Week? - Answers in Genesis

Please read this interesting article by Answers in Genesis which explains things better. Please click on:

Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?

 

[Strangelove]

Bear in mind that if you introduce billions and Millions of years of death and decay on planet Earth then what is the garden of Eden all about. It says that "everything was good". It was only after sin came into the world that death and decay started (according to Genesis) and in the very same passage we have mention of the Messiah who would conquer sin in the future. If you allegorise away Genesis 1 and 2 you destroy the whole gospel. The video plus answers in genesis website will explain this much better. The aig site is excellent for explaining how the global flood rebuts virtually every question about evolution.

Earth is not a planet. Planet means wanderer.

 

[resurrection33]

I believe the Bible is 100% accurate in the history it relates. That does not mean I agree with all of what Paul has to say.

 

[JohnChingford2007]

R33. How can you (a mere man) decide what is true and what is not true. God inspired Paul to write holy scripture. You are actually putting yourself at a higher plane than Paul. You (a mere man) are acting like a god depending upon your own (limited) understanding to decide what is truth and what is not. It is time for you to repent and confess this pride and humble yourself before God confessing that you are a mere mortal and that the Word Of God is MUCH MORE reliable than your limited thinking.

This may sound harsh, but harsh words need to be said because you are putting yourself in a very dangerous position of rebellion towards God. You may not realise that this is what you are doing, but by rejecting any scripture, you are rejecting God who wrote it. I say these things out of concern and compassion towards you. I speak these things out of a heart of love.

 

[resurrection33]

R33. How can you (a mere man) decide what is true and what is not true. God inspired Paul to write holy scripture. You are actually putting yourself at a higher plane than Paul. You (a mere man) are acting like a god depending upon your own (limited) understanding to decide what is truth and what is not. It is time for you to repent and confess this pride and humble yourself before God confessing that you are a mere mortal and that the Word Of God is MUCH MORE reliable than your limited thinking.

This may sound harsh, but harsh words need to be said because you are putting yourself in a very dangerous position of rebellion towards God. You may not realise that this is what you are doing, but by rejecting any scripture, you are rejecting God who wrote it. I say these things out of concern and compassion towards you. I speak these things out of a heart of love.

I think Paul was a great man, but I don’t think any man, other than Jesus, is perfect.