Is The Bible All True?

[PillsburyDoughboy]

I personaly believe no it isn't. I and others I have talked to that are christian beleive the bible is full of fables intended to teach us a lesson and over the years people just assumed these stories were actual events. What do you think about that? Do you think every single story is real? If they are why don't we see miracles like that any more? Such as the story of the man on the donkey and the donkey spoke to him telling him there was an angel in from of him.

 

[Nachtjager]

I agree. The Old Testament in particular is filled with fables, or parables, or whatever you'd like to call them, that were ancient oral tradition used to teach a moral and spiritual lesson, they were not actual historical events.

A lot of Christians don't like that idea, but once you look at it objectively and pray about it, looking at the times it was recorded and why, the truth seems beyond debate.

There are many lessons in the OT, but not much legitimate history - at least from where I'm at.

Take care and God bless!

 

[HypnoToad]

All true.

But then again, I'm apparently one of those Christians who doesn't pray and is controlled solely by emotion, so what do I know.

 

[Nachtjager]

All true.

But then again, I'm apparently one of those Christians who doesn't pray and is controlled solely by emotion, so what do I know.

Jedi dude, I didn't mean to belittle anyone or mean to come off sounding arrogant, please forgive if I did. All I meant was, for me anyway, when I started coming to grips with the realization that much of the OT just wasn't actual history, as I had always been taught it was and had believed, it took a lot of prayer, soul searching, and struggling to keep my faith intact. I've read many of your posts on the forum for quite some time and I am quite aware you are indeed well educated on the scriptures and I wouldn't dare call anyone's faith into question.

By the same token, however, I am often chastised by my fellow Christians when I point out contradictions in the texts and simply say "they can't both be true." At that point, somebody throws the heretic flag and hides behind the inerrancy premise. Sorry, but saying something is all true "just because" isn't good enough. Like most here on this forum, I am seeking the truth of the Word of God, the most accurate versions of the Gospel of Christ that can be found. Salvation and the message of Jesus, to me, is a little too important to simply be left up to what a group of guys 1800 years ago decided we should and shouldn't know.

Please bear with me bro, I promise, I don't mean to offend anyone, I simply seek the truth and desire to serve our Lord.

Take care and God bless.

 

[ContentInHim]

If you truly desire to serve our Lord, how have you determined that he wants to be served? What documents do you use? The church? How did they decide how to serve? If you believe that some of the Bible is myth and some truth, how do you determine what is truth and what is myth?

The Holy Spirit has been very faithful to explain the supposed contradictions to me. He might do the same for you if you prayed about it and quit asking the opinions of man.

 

[Ran77]

The Savior taught in parables. These are stories that are not true, but intended to convey an important truth in a way that we can understand it. That being the case, it seems that many of the events in the Bible could fall into that category. Or perhaps, they have just been elaborated on a bit to emphasize certain concepts.

For instance, was there a world-wide flood? Or was it instead a localized incident that the people of that time either mistook to be global or made it larger in the telling for dramatic effect. Currently, there is evidence for a local flood, but not a world-wide one.

Does that really effect our faith or the messages we receive from the telling of this story? I don't think so. However, there might be those who are bothered by it being presented as a truth when in fact it is not. If this event is not true as it is told, is that an indication that the Bible has errors and that in some way diminishes the value or truthfulness of the Gospel? I would be interested in hearing what others have to say about it.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

The Savior taught in parables. These are stories that are not true, but intended to convey an important truth in a way that we can understand it. That being the case, it seems that many of the events in the Bible could fall into that category. Or perhaps, they have just been elaborated on a bit to emphasize certain concepts.

For instance, was there a world-wide flood? Or was it instead a localized incident that the people of that time either mistook to be global or made it larger in the telling for dramatic effect. Currently, there is evidence for a local flood, but not a world-wide one.

Does that really effect our faith or the messages we receive from the telling of this story? I don't think so. However, there might be those who are bothered by it being presented as a truth when in fact it is not. If this event is not true as it is told, is that an indication that the Bible has errors and that in some way diminishes the value or truthfulness of the Gospel? I would be interested in hearing what others have to say about it.

You bring up good points. There are some people out there that believe all of the events in the Bible happend and that everything that is written is completely true. There are others out there that believe that the Bible is a collection of stories that aren't necesarily based on events that actually happend. I can't confirm or deny whether or not the events recorded in the Bible actually happend or not. I wasn't around thousands of years ago to see whether or not everything happend the way it is written.

It really doesn't matter whether or not everything written in the Bible was based on actual events. Our purpose as Christians isn't to prove or disprove the Bible. Our calling goes so much futher beyond that. It's the messages that the Bible conveys to us that is most important and I think alot of people have lost sight of that. I hope that we can all agree that our true calling is to use the Bible as a guide to live a God pleasing life.

Proverbs 3:5-6. Take it to heart.

 

[ContentInHim]

Lonesome Texan - I prefer to believe that my calling is to serve God and one way I can do that is by believing that what he caused to be written is true. Just my humble opinion - your mileage obviously does vary but you should open yourself to the possibility that it's true.

 

[PillsburyDoughboy]

all good points thanks for the feed back

 

[LonesomeTexan]

It's not that I'm not open to believing that everything written in the Bible is the exact truth. It is just that I physically wasn't there to see it happen and therefore I can't confirm or deny that all of the events in the Bible actually happend the way they were written. The Bible was written by men inspired by the greatness of God, but they were men none the less. I personally don't believe that the words of man can express our God in all of his glory. Anything is possible with God. Surely everything written in the Bible could of happend. I guess I'll know the answer when I meet my maker.

 

[mystery4]

The Savior taught in parables. These are stories that are not true, but intended to convey an important truth in a way that we can understand it. That being the case, it seems that many of the events in the Bible could fall into that category. Or perhaps, they have just been elaborated on a bit to emphasize certain concepts.

For instance, was there a world-wide flood? Or was it instead a localized incident that the people of that time either mistook to be global or made it larger in the telling for dramatic effect. Currently, there is evidence for a local flood, but not a world-wide one.

Does that really effect our faith or the messages we receive from the telling of this story? I don't think so. However, there might be those who are bothered by it being presented as a truth when in fact it is not. If this event is not true as it is told, is that an indication that the Bible has errors and that in some way diminishes the value or truthfulness of the Gospel? I would be interested in hearing what others have to say about it.

Anyone can answer these questions, its not just for Ran

Just wondering, what evidence is there for a local flood but not a world-wide flood?

If it were only local why is it that it wasn't until the second time Noah sent out the dove that it returned with a leaf? Why not the first time? Also the raven was said to have flown back and forth until it found dry land. Why did it not just go out and find it if it were there already?
Read Gen 8:6-12.

If there really were a world-wide flood would that not also account for the fossils of plant and animal life we are now finding all across the world? For what amounts of force and pressure would the world have suddenly been put under that could account for such things if not sudden masses of water?

Also if God did not destroy the world by a flood, then does that mean when he says he will destroy it by fire that it will only be localised and not world-wide as the flood was? (Gen 9:11, 14-15; 2 Peter 3:6-7).

If the Bible was only telling a myth in a world-wide flood, then does that mean the life of Jesus is only a myth too? And if thats a myth then does that mean we are not really saved? If its not a myth, why is it real and the flood not, how can we tell the difference?

 

[Ran77]

Just wondering, what evidence is there for a local flood but not a world-wide flood?

Because: there is evidence that a local flood happened roughly around the time indicated in the Bible and there is no evidence that a flood happened world-wide. Scientifically speaking that is.

The Discovery channel did a wonderful program on the local flood. Perhaps if you check out their website it might still have some data on it. But a quick wrap up is that they have found debrie on the bottom of the sea floor that looks to be ruins. They have run simulations that indicate a situation similar to what we saw in New Orleans - where a break in the land barrier flooded a region that existed below sea level. Caused by the increased rain in the area and would produce the results listed in the Bible.

As for a world-wide flood, I don't have any evidence to point to that, I only know that scientists are very skeptical about a world-wide flood and some claim that even have proof that it could not have happened. I'm sorry but I don't have a link for that information. I'm sure you could do a google search and find some info on it if your interested.

If it were only local why is it that it wasn't until the second time Noah sent out the dove that it returned with a leaf? Why not the first time? Also the raven was said to have flown back and forth until it found dry land. Why did it not just go out and find it if it were there already?

Because the sea in question is a large place. Or perhaps they were even washed out to the ocean during the flood and it took that long to drift back to land. I am sure that if I wanted to spend the time I could find several explanations for it. However, what purpose would that serve?

If there really were a world-wide flood would that not also account for the fossils of plant and animal life we are now finding all across the world? For what amounts of force and pressure would the world have suddenly been put under that could account for such things if not sudden masses of water?

Or how about the scientific theories that men which study this field already have explaining those situations? Is there something wrong with them? Such as, portions of the continents could have at one time been under the ocean and are now higher. Even though it is slow, the face of the Earth is constantly changing. Flat land becomes mountains, mountains become hills, hills wear down to flat land, and the cycle starts all over again.

Not to mention the short amount of time that the flood is described to have happen would not have been long enough to do whatever it is you think "force and pressure" would have done.

Have you considered that there isn't enough water in our planetary ecosystem to cover all of the Earth. It is just impossible.

Also if God did not destroy the world by a flood, then does that mean when he says he will destroy it by fire that it will only be localised and not world-wide as the flood was? (Gen 9:11, 14-15; 2 Peter 3:6-7).

Maybe. Or perhaps since His children now occupy the whole face of the Earth, this promise must be all inclusive because we are everywhere.

If the Bible was only telling a myth in a world-wide flood, then does that mean the life of Jesus is only a myth too?

Good question, but I think I already asked similar questions to the forum at large. What do you think? Is your faith shaken by the flood story being incorrect?

And if thats a myth then does that mean we are not really saved? If its not a myth, why is it real and the flood not, how can we tell the difference?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Dave01]

The Holy Spirit has showed me some translation errors over the years, but He has yet to point out a book that is not directly from Him. If there is one in our bible, I have not run across it yet, so I have no reason not accept everyone of them as truth and the very word of GOD.

 

[PowderedGold]

I think the Bible contains literal truth, figuratively described. It is a testament to God's power and the inspired nature of those he chose to write the books of the Bible that they hold up so well after 2000 years.

I like to look at the story of the man posessed by a demon who lived in the tombs. If you want to interpret that literally, then he's really possessed by an evil spirit. If you want to be figurative, you could say, "That man had schizophrenia and Christ healed him of that disease."

Of course, Jesus can't say that because no one would have known what he was talking about. No one reading the Gospels in the early days would have known. Christianity never would have taken off if Christ didn't speak to his followers and listeners in terms they understood, nor would Christianity have taken off if the Gospel was not written in a language the earliest readers would have understood.

Yet after 2000 years we can read that story and find a modern application without resorting to "demonic possession". In fact, I would say that believing the Bible as 100% literal truth is a display of doubt in God's power to write a book which carries equal meaning to every generation, which is what the Bible is. However, to carry the meaning across thousands of years, God needed to use figurative writing, fables, parables, and allegory.

Conversely, if the Bible were meant to be taken literally throughout all history, none of the things which made sense to Paul's readers would necessarily make sense to us today. Imagine if someone gave you the Bible in Aramaic and expected you to understand it.

Take the Flood story. Ancient Israelites needed to believe a story about God covering the entire planet with water to drown the wicked because it showed the great power of their God over the pagan gods.

Nowadays, we're less threatened by pagan influences, so we find different meaning in the Noah story: man's devotion to God's will always provides rewards.

God knew that the Israelites would find the meaning they needed, just as God knew that 21st century Christians would find the meaning they needed. His eternal wisdom and foresight have made the Bible equally meaningful to everyone who reads it, no matter what age they live in.

I think this explains some inconsistencies in the Gospels as well. When one Gospel directly contradicts another, it is because the figurative meaning is sometimes more important than the literal meaning, yet God is attempting to provide us with differing insights into the same events.

 

[AvgJoe]

Is The Bible All True?

I personaly believe no it isn't. I and others I have talked to that are christian beleive the bible is full of fables intended to teach us a lesson and over the years people just assumed these stories were actual events.

How, then, do you and the others decide which parts are true and which parts are not true? If it sounds to fantastical, its not true? Jesus coming back from the dead sounds pretty far out, so maybe that isn't true. What criteria do you use to determine what is true and what is false?

What do you think about that? Do you think every single story is real?

Yes, the Bible and every event it contains is true unless we are told it is just a story, as in the case of Jesus' parables.

If they are why don't we see miracles like that any more? Such as the story of the man on the donkey and the donkey spoke to him telling him there was an angel in from of him.

Because they are no longer necessary.

In the Old Testament, God used miracles and direct communication with people in order to reveal to them His character and nature, as well as His plans and commands.

In the New Testament, Jesus performed miracles to prove that He was indeed the Son of God and to foster belief in Him (Matthew 9:6; John 10:38). After His miraculous resurrection, He enabled His disciples to continue performing miracles in order to prove they were truly His, again so that people would believe on Him who sent them.

We now have God's revelation of Himself, His plans and commands, the truth of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles all recorded in Scripture. Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in Scripture, are the cornerstone and foundation of our faith (Ephesians 2:20). As such, miracles are no longer necessary, as the message of Jesus and His apostles has already been attested to, and accurately recorded in the Scriptures.

But perhaps more people would believe if God performed spectacular miracles today?

When God performed amazing and powerful miracles for the Israelites, did that cause them to obey Him? No, the Israelites constantly disobeyed and rebelled against God even though they saw all the miracles. Likewise, Jesus performed countless miracles, yet the vast majority of people did not believe in Him. If God performed miracles today, like He did in the past, it would result in the same outcome.

We do not need more miracles. What we need is to believe in the miracle of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. The just shall live by faith.

 

[Time2BCounted]

I personaly believe no it isn't. I and others I have talked to that are christian beleive the bible is full of fables intended to teach us a lesson and over the years people just assumed these stories were actual events. What do you think about that? Do you think every single story is real? If they are why don't we see miracles like that any more? Such as the story of the man on the donkey and the donkey spoke to him telling him there was an angel in from of him.

You dont believe an ass can speak? It is obvious here at this board some can type so why not speak? (Humor)

Seriously, point out something you believe not to be true.

Do you believe the creator of all there is does not have the ability to make an animal speak? Are you really a Christian? What in the bible DO you believe? If you are a true believer we can tlak about this and I will personally talk to you here bout what it is you do not believe.

 

[Time2BCounted]

Because: there is evidence that a local flood happened roughly around the time indicated in the Bible and there is no evidence that a flood happened world-wide. Scientifically speaking that is.

The Discovery channel did a wonderful program on the local flood. Perhaps if you check out their website it might still have some data on it.

I am curious as to why one would believe the discovery channel over the bible? Have you ever done your own research in the areas of fossils and geology? There is, contrary to the discovery channel, massive indications of a worldwide flood.

 

[AvgJoe]

For instance, was there a world-wide flood?

Jesus (Matthew 24:37-38; Luke 17:26-27), the writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 11:7) and Peter (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5) all regarded the world wide flood as an historical event.

 

[PowderedGold]

There was no worldwide flood.

 

[artybloke]

All facts are true, but not all truths are facts.

When people say "Can the Bible be all true?" they are often confusing "truth" which applies to metaphysical and spiritual things, with "facts" which are hard, scientifically observable things or events.

The Bible is a book of great spiritual, moral and metaphysical truth. But often it relates those truths through story, poetry, mythology, legend, parable, "wisdom literature", proverb & aphorism rather than through solid historical factuality.

And why not? What better way to communicate a real, spiritual truth than through a poem or a proverb or a story, especially when the first hearers of the Bible stories would have been steeped in such things? They lived in a world where factuality was only at best a secondary concern, but spiritual truth was of major concern.