Is The Bible All True?

[Nachtjager]

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.

Beautifully stated! This is perhaps the best summary of the Bible I've seen on the forum so far - well done Artybloke!

As to 2BCounted's question of what's to believed and what's not to be believed, here's my short list, go ahead, tear into me.

There was no worldwide flood, a serious localized flood to be sure, because it is recorded in other ancient texts as well.

There was no literal Tower of Babel, the chapter before describes how Noah's sons were spread around and gives account of them "by their languages" and assigns a specific son to Babylon - thus, different languages well before Babylon was even populated.

There was no parting of the Red Sea - I still hold to the "sea of reeds" theory which is what the text actually says. Also, there is no record of plagues on Egypt outside of Genesis, and the Egyptians were prolific in recording their history. Also no mention in Egyptian texts of Moses at all for that matter.

The creation account is an attempt by early Hebrew priests to explain to simple men how the world and everything else came into existence. It pulls heavily from Mesopotamian stories of creation and Egyptian texts as well, the similarities cannot be ignored and they are much older than the Hebrew account.

There are many, many others, primarily in the OT that I believe are merely oral tradition meant to convey spiritual messages, just as Jesus told parables. They are not literal history. It seems some of those posting on here have bought into Ken Hamm's Answers in Genesis thing entirely too much.

God gave me eyes to see with, ears to hear, a brain to discern, and a spirit that desires to seek truth - I utilize all of the gifts He has bestowed upon me to seek His truth. I am not a heretic, I am not denying my faith, I am merely in pursuit of what really IS the truth of God, and NOT what is the text that the RCC decided SHOULD be the Word of God.

I am stunned when Christians simply stick their heads in the sand and say the KJV of the Bible is infallable and inerrant, "just because" and refuse to listen to discussion about the origins to the texts or what the Word was originally intended to say. You wouldn't do that with any other book, why do it with the book we base our entire faith on?

Take care and God bless!

 

[HypnoToad]

I am stunned when Christians simply stick their heads in the sand and say the KJV of the Bible is infallable and inerrant, "just because"

You were saying something about not wanting to offend anyone?

But then those who accept the Bible for what it says just "have their heads in the sand". And not all of us are KJV-onlyists, either. And not all of us think so "just because".

But hey, you just stand for truth, so don't spare our toes.

And your comment about the tower of Babel is incorrect. The genealogies before it cover a time span from before the tower to after the tower. Peleg is listed there and it's mentioned that the "earth was divided" at his time - that's the Babel incident. The "according to their languages" comments are all after the tower occurred.

 

[Nachtjager]

Hey Jedi, please, I'm still not trying to poke a stick at you. When I referred to Christians who say it's all true "just because" I was trying to describe the general attitude I run into at my church or among others locally who know absolutely nothing about the origin of the scriptures. They honestly, seemingly, think the Vatican has a glowing, flaming book hidden in the basement somewhere that was completely carved out by the finger of God and therefore, nothing in the Bible may be questioned without the person doing the questioning being branded a heretic.

Regarding the Tower of Babel, I respectfully disagree, and I underscore respectfully. Genesis 10 states that Peleg was a Semite, a descendent of Shem, who's lands stretched "from Mesha to Sephar in the eastern hill country."

Babylon, was settled by the descendents of Ham. Cush was Ham's first son and Nimrod (who built the Tower of Babel) was the son of Cush. Shem was the youngest son of Noah, and Peleg is much father down in the geneology list than Nimrod is, so theoretically, he was born after Nimrod. That aside, Peleg would've been nowhere near Babylon or the Tower of Babel if the geneology is correct.

And again, it just seems to fly in face of common sense now that the Tower of Babel was a parable to illustrate God not tolerating man thinking he could outsmart God. We know that heaven doesn't lie just beyond the clouds or even in space as we know it, so why wouldn't God just let them foolishly build a tower as high as they possibly could? It's not like they were going to reach heaven with stone and bricks, so why cause people to talk differently to stop its construction? And, as prone as God was in the OT toward sending blazing fire and brimstone down to destroy things, it seems to me that a human king thinking he could outsmart God might warrant something along the lines of Sodom and Gomoroah, not just a bit of confusion.

Be patient with me brother, when we all finally are told the truth together, we'll have a good chuckle (I hope) about all our worldly ponderings on such things as this!

Take care and God bless!

 

[PowderedGold]

You've summed up what I believe excellently Nachtjager. The Bible provides wisdom and illumination through its stories which are even more enduring than historical accounts.

The only problem with figurative interpretation of the Bible is: "Where does it stop?" If we don't take Noah and the Tower of Babel literally, do we have to take anything literally? For example, I take the account of Christ's resurrection as literal truth, but where is the line drawn?

 

[Nachtjager]

You've summed up what I believe excellently Nachtjager. The Bible provides wisdom and illumination through its stories which are even more enduring than historical accounts.

The only problem with figurative interpretation of the Bible is: "Where does it stop?" If we don't take Noah and the Tower of Babel literally, do we have to take anything literally? For example, I take the account of Christ's resurrection as literal truth, but where is the line drawn?

Where the line is drawn, I believe, is wherever the spirit tells you to draw it. As for me, I would NEVER dare state that the account of Jesus's resurection isn't literal - of course it is, it is the basis of my whole reason for studying the Bible as I do.

The big difference for me, textually? I think it's entirely different to write about Jesus from a time period which is only fifty to one hundred years removed from when he walked the earth, and it's a whole other matter when you have Hebrew priests writing about something which occurred at least three or four thousand years before they themselves existed. That's a HUGE difference in credibility for me.

Jesus is the way. No doubt, no argument, no quarrel. I think each of us, upon study, is given the wisdom to discern the rest of the Bible, and in the end, we all must choose what we believe and what we do not believe. And perhaps that's why the Bible is so perplexing in the first place?

Take care and God bless!

 

[Ran77]

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.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Ran77]

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.

Feel free to provide links to this information and I will be happy to look at it.


But to answer your question, I believe the Bible has the ability to work with the truth - whatever the truth really is. Without considering the scietific discoveries we have access today, we run the risk of a limited understanding of what the Bible meant to convey. As we gain knowledge, I believe that some aspects of what is written in the Bible will take on a different meaning to us. I suggest that the scripture which speaks of milk before meat knows this to be true as well. As we grow in knowledge our understanding of what the scriptures have to say to us will change.

I don't take the words of the Discovery Channel above that of the bible. However, I do try to become more knowledgable. And as my knowledge grows I see ways in which the Bible can be intepreted differently. I am open to possibilities - which I then take to the Lord to see the truthfulness of them.


The books of the Bible were written by men - not God Himself. I think that it is possible that God did not talk directly to the author of flood story and state "I flooded the whole world." I believe that it is written from the accounts of the events as seen by mortal man. To Moses, it might have seemed to be that the whole world was flooded. However, unless God gave him that information through a revelation, Moses wouldn't really know how much flooding really took place. Moses could have relayed the story as he saw it and to his perception there was nothing but water so the whole world must have been flooded.

But that doesn't make it true.

 

[hoser]

Everything in the Bible is all true, however; not everything that is true is in the Bible.

 

[HypnoToad]

Babylon, was settled by the descendents of Ham. Cush was Ham's first son and Nimrod (who built the Tower of Babel)

The text doesn't say Nimrod built the tower.

Nimrod was the son of Cush. Shem was the youngest son of Noah, and Peleg is much father down in the geneology list than Nimrod is, so theoretically, he was born after Nimrod.

"Much farther down the list"???

It goes: Noah > Ham > Cush > Nimrod

and : Noah > Shem > Arphaxad > Eber > Peleg

Not exactly a vast span of time, they were only one generation apart, a great deal of their lives would have overlapped.

That aside, Peleg would've been nowhere near Babylon or the Tower of Babel if the geneology is correct.

How so? He would have traveled to his area AFTER the Babel incident.

 

[Epiphoskei]

-deleted post-

 

[KitsapGirl]

I for one believe it's 100% accurate.

Something to think about...


The Bible states many times that

Genesis 17:17</STRONG>
Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, “Shall a child be born to a man who is one hundred years old? And shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?”

Proverbs 20:5</STRONG>
Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water, But a man of understanding will draw it out.

Jeremiah 17:9 (NKJ)

9 “ The heart is deceitful above all things,
And desperately wicked;
Who can know it?



It seems that God is telling us that our heart is an organ that can do what the brain can! But we all know that's not true...or do we?

http://www.med.unc.edu/wellness/main/links/cellular memory.htm

Recently, with the frequent occurences of heart transplants, they have discovered that the heart holds part of YOU long after you die. The person who receives your heart (and other organs) starts to take on some of your characteristics, & memory.

Apparently your heart can do what the Bible claims! They wrote this long before the first transplant was even thought of!




please also research, I'm by no means an expert.

 

[artybloke]

please also research, I'm by no means an expert.

And boy have you proved that you're not.

 

[Orion567]

The bible is not about Us and what We can do to make ourselves better. I could learn how to do good works from a self-help book. God inspired the Written Word through many different writers based on one principle - 'Redemption'. From Genesis to Revelation it is about God reconciling man to Himself. Surely we see instances where men rise up and become great godly men and do things in the name of God, but overall if you read the bible for all it is worth, it is about God and His efforts to return mankind to a right relationship just as it was in the Garden of Eden. The miracles would be awesome to see, but if people saw miracles would they necessarily turn from wickedness and worship the Living God? You see examples in the bible that atest to that idea. I believe the bible IS the Inspired, Inerrant Word of God due to the fact that I have read it cover to cover and found it points to one message. 'Redemption'. Through Christ We have all we need to have a right relationship with God.

 

[jeffreyk]

The bible is not about Us and what We can do to make ourselves better. I could learn how to do good works from a self-help book. God inspired the Written Word through many different writers based on one principle - 'Redemption'. From Genesis to Revelation it is about God reconciling man to Himself. Surely we see instances where men rise up and become great godly men and do things in the name of God, but overall if you read the bible for all it is worth, it is about God and His efforts to return mankind to a right relationship just as it was in the Garden of Eden. The miracles would be awesome to see, but if people saw miracles would they necessarily turn from wickedness and worship the Living God? You see examples in the bible that atest to that idea. I believe the bible IS the Inspired, Inerrant Word of God due to the fact that I have read it cover to cover and found it points to one message. 'Redemption'. Through Christ We have all we need to have a right relationship with God.

I agree. The Bible is woven together as one whole narrative and the story is Redemption. It is also a collection of reliable documents. It has history, poetry and biography. I just read a book, about the gospels specifically, that was really interesting. It's called Can We Trust the Gospels? and it's by Mark Roberts. Even though I already put my faith in Scriptures, it was really good to hear reasons why they are reliable.

 

[zspeedyrabit]

The Holy Bible was written by the will of God and the Holy Bible (scripture) has been "preserved" by God. The world is supernaturaly governed.