How can you be half and half?

[alexiscurious]

To my surprise, I have found that the overwhelming majority of Christians here believe that approximately half the Bible is historical and that the other half is not. Many events described in the old testament that are intended to be read historically (creation, flood, exile from Egypt) are nothing more than a made up fairy tale. I just don't understand how you can say this and still call yourself a Christian. Explain this to me.

To me, all of this misreported information demonstrates that biblical authors are capable of getting things completely wrong. My question to you is, how can you believe in only half of the Bible? I thought it was an all or nothing sort of thing. How do you know that the biblical authors of the New Testament were not as imaginative as those authors who came before them?

Ask yourself a simple question: "If God wanted to communicate with human beings in human language, would He make things plain and simple, or would He complicate matters by giving us a fictitious or allegorical account about Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the whole history of the line of Seth, Abraham, and Jacob? Would He mix fact and fiction to confuse humans, or would He simply give us the truth, no matter how "fantastic" or "foolish" it appears?"

 

[annafullofgrace]

I don't. I believe in an all literal inspired word of God. So for me, it would be all-I don't believe scripture should be up for interpretation. It is what it is-which I feel is different than explaining something. But I was raised to think that some stories were just that stories-it was very confusing to me as a child and as I grew into my teens and vey early 20's I would have considered myself agnostic because none of it made sense. What am I suppose to believe...I could never be sure.

However, some books are considered historical books and some are poetry-such as the psalms and some are wisdom - proverbs. I know it's a kid show, but there is a clip (YouTube) on the series 'whats in the bible?' That helps explain the books in the bible and church history, etc... It's worth listening too for an easy explanation in which books are considered what and why.

 

[ephraimanesti]

How do you know that the biblical authors of the New Testament were not as imaginative as those authors who came before them?

MY FRIEND,

One of my original reasons for putting my trust in the authors of the New Testament is that all were willing to face martyrdom by the Romans rather than deny what they had seen, heard, and experienced personally. Most died very unpleasant deaths--i.e., Peter, at his own request, was crucified upside down and Paul was willingly beheaded after they refused to worship Caesar rather God. No one would refuse to recant in order to save their life if they knew that what they had written and reported was a product of their own imagination. A willingness to die for what one know to be the Truth is, to my mind, good insurance that they are trustworthy and what they have written is true.

CHRIST'S SLAVE,
ephraim

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

To my surprise, I have found that the overwhelming majority of Christians here believe that approximately half the Bible is historical and that the other half is not. Many events described in the old testament (creation, flood, exile from Egypt) are nothing more than a made up fairy tale. I just don't understand how you can say this and still call yourself a Christian.

To me, all of this misreported information demonstrates that biblical authors are capable of getting things completely wrong. My question to you is, how can you believe in only half of the Bible? I thought it was an all or nothing sort of thing. How do you know that the biblical authors of the New Testament were not as imaginative as those authors who came before them?

The N.T. reports than in the last days many people will fall away from the truth of Gods Word and fabricate fine sounding arguments that discredit the Bible ; in short : Apostasy. We see this running rampant in our churches today. Many will turn their backs on sound doctrine and even Jesus the One whom they profess as their own Savior and Lord. As for Genesis and Exodus, if this isn't true actual history then Jesus himself was a Liar since he made a few references to these and other events in Genesis as actually occurring . The problem with so many Church Goers today is that they are immature in their understanding of the Bible , have been led astray by false teachers, and are still siding with the World and its philosophies. This will only increase exponentially in time as the Bible declares.

Further, what ive found is, nearly ALL Christians haven't taken the time to come up to speed on Christian Apologetics and to learn that Christianity is a thinking mans religion not based solely on faith but on faith having good reason and logic well supported by science. It urks me when anti-Christians spout off untrue things about the Bibles lack of historical credibility...but when you start hearing Church Goers who profess Christ making such mistakes its makes you want to cry. So many Church Goers are happy just occupying a Seat on a Sunday morning and never getting into the deeper issues of their Christian Faith and Walk.

 

[lesliedellow]

To my surprise, I have found that the overwhelming majority of Christians here believe that approximately half the Bible is historical and that the other half is not. Many events described in the old testament (creation, flood, exile from Egypt) are nothing more than a made up fairy tale. I just don't understand how you can say this and still call yourself a Christian

I suppose "made up fairy tale" is the kind of loaded expression which is only to be expected from an atheist.

It is not necessary for Job to have been a real person before the Book of Job can be a valid commentary on the problem of evil. It is not necessary for Genesis 1 to be a scientific account of creation, before it can say that the universe was brought into existence through an exercise of God's omnipotent power, and that there is nothing which doesn't owe its existence to him.

It is not obvious what "literally true" could even mean in the case of poems, proverbs or letters.

 

[Dari0]

lukewarm you mean?

 

[humbleServant77]

To my surprise, I have found that the overwhelming majority of Christians here believe that approximately half the Bible is historical and that the other half is not. Many events described in the old testament (creation, flood, exile from Egypt) are nothing more than a made up fairy tale. I just don't understand how you can say this and still call yourself a Christian.

That must be because you suppose all of the Bible is the same type of literature. It is not. Is poetry historical? Is moral dilemma historical?

I posit that you have only been exposed to the shallowest form(s) of Faith, and as such it is fitting that it be blown away in the wind. We are ALL tested, and when our Faith proves to be lacking it is in our best interest for that part of it to depart from us, so it can be replaced by something worthwhile. Its a growth process. Anything alive grows.

To me, all of this misreported information demonstrates that biblical authors are capable of getting things completely wrong.

"Completely wrong" need not be the case. It reveals extreme thinking: everything must either be historic fact, or completely wrong. Life doesn't really work that way. Can you count the number of formal logical fallacies you have committed in the making of this error? Even one proves to you that your thinking is in error here.

My question to you is, how can you believe in only half of the Bible? I thought it was an all or nothing sort of thing.

Over-simplification. Put away such childishness.

What does it mean that "the kingdom of God is like the smallest of seeds?"

How do you know that the biblical authors of the New Testament were not as imaginative as those authors who came before them?

If you want imagination - read Revelation. WOW! Why would you condemn such a wonderful aspect of humanity?

 

[oi_antz]

To my surprise, I have found that the overwhelming majority of Christians here believe that approximately half the Bible is historical and that the other half is not. Many events described in the old testament (creation, flood, exile from Egypt) are nothing more than a made up fairy tale. I just don't understand how you can say this and still call yourself a Christian.

To me, all of this misreported information demonstrates that biblical authors are capable of getting things completely wrong. My question to you is, how can you believe in only half of the Bible? I thought it was an all or nothing sort of thing. How do you know that the biblical authors of the New Testament were not as imaginative as those authors who came before them?

Every person who wrote things that got put into the bible was an individual person. Because of this, they naturally have a different knowledge which reflects their experience, culture and era. They also have a different objective, they have a different intended audience, they have a different manner of speaking. They also may have a different regard for their responsibility to God and man. Therefore, every statement in the bible should be assessed according to what it's relevance is and what the author was hoping to achieve by saying it. There is every indication that gospel authors and (assumed Luke) who wrote Acts, were intending to record statements of fact, and also to convey their understanding of the events around Jesus' life, resulting in personal conclusion. St Paul intended mainly to encourage the pursuit of faith in Jesus Chrst, toward people who he actually knew. The person who wrote Genesis, Exodus etc however, we do not know so well whether he was not intending to explain concepts rather than state facts. People tend to be able to believe either or both to their own satisfaction. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the author of Genesis and Exodus etc was not lying in order to create a religion for the Jewish people. What is clear however, is that it did result in a genuine and sincere faith in a single, supreme God, and which has demonstrably maintained that ability to this day.

 

[ebia]

To my surprise, I have found that the overwhelming majority of Christians here believe that approximately half the Bible is historical and that the other half is not. Many events described in the old testament (creation, flood, exile from Egypt) are nothing more than a made up fairy tale. I just don't understand how you can say this and still call yourself a Christian.

To me, all of this misreported information demonstrates that biblical authors are capable of getting things completely wrong. My question to you is, how can you believe in only half of the Bible? I thought it was an all or nothing sort of thing. How do you know that the biblical authors of the New Testament were not as imaginative as those authors who came before them?

Your question presupposes that historical factual reporting is the only sort of literature of value. Which is an absurd notion.

 

[scraparcs]

..

 

[alexiscurious]

*sigh*

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Most of the old testament authors wrote about events where it was there intention that they be taken historically. Now my question is directed towards Christians who deny that the creation, flood, exile from Egypt, etc are non-historical (when they are obviously intended to be).

The question no one really answered but is the main point of this entire thread:

How can you still be a Christian if you know that the Bible has contents that are intended to be read as historical but are not actually historically accurate at all?

 

[alexiscurious]

It is not necessary for Genesis 1 to be a scientific account of creation, before it can say that the universe was brought into existence through an exercise of God's omnipotent power, and that there is nothing which doesn't owe its existence to him.

You sure? Wouldn't Jesus be a liar then if what you say is true?

The principal people mentioned in Genesis chapters 1–11 are referred to as real—historical, not mythical—people in the rest of the Bible, often many times. For example, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are referred to in 15 other books of the Bible.

The Lord Jesus Christ referred to the Creation of Adam and Eve as a real historical event, by quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in His teaching about divorce (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:2–9), and by referring to Noah as a real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event, in His teaching about the ‘coming of the Son of man’ (Matthew 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27).

Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events, the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full meaning.

 

[ebia]

*sigh*

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Most of the old testament authors wrote about events where it was there intention that they be taken historically.

That's seriously begging the question.
The whole point is that they were not written with that in mind at all.

 

[ebia]

You sure? Wouldn't Jesus be a liar then if what you say is true?

The principal people mentioned in Genesis chapters 1–11 are referred to as real—historical, not mythical—people in the rest of the Bible, often many times. For example, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are referred to in 15 other books of the Bible.

The Lord Jesus Christ referred to the Creation of Adam and Eve as a real historical event, by quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in His teaching about divorce (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:2–9), and by referring to Noah as a real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event, in His teaching about the ‘coming of the Son of man’ (Matthew 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27).

Referring to a story isn't making any comment whatsoever on whether the story is historically factual.

Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events, the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full meaning.

wrong

 

[alexiscurious]

Referring to a story isn't making any comment whatsoever on whether the story is historically factual.

What else could the authors possibly do to make their stories seem any more historically factual? Didn't they insert genealogies, meticulous detail, real places, and real people into their stories? And you are telling me that they intended for people not to take it historically?

 

[ebia]

What else could the authors possibly do to make their stories seem any more historically factual? Didn't they insert genealogies, meticulous detail, real places, and real people into their stories?

All elements of stories, whether or not the stories are intended to be factual.

 

[alexiscurious]

All elements of stories, whether or not the stories are intended to be factual.

So what makes the book about Jesus any more factual than the book about the Israelites exiting out of Egypt?

 

[humbleServant77]

*sigh*

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Most of the old testament authors wrote about events where it was there intention that they be taken historically.

No. What makes you think that?

Serious question. I think this is necessary to explore, before anyone can help you with this.

 

[ebia]

So what makes the book about Jesus any more factual than the book about the Israelites exiting out of Egypt?

It's much closer in time, for one thing.
But also the genres of the books...


Also note that "factual" is not an all or nothing thing when applied to literature. No literature is purely factual or purely non-factual. Everything is somewhere along a scale.

 

[ebia]

To help things along, read the story in 2 Sam 12.