Remodeling the Bible as a book of truth instead of a book of myths

[Colter]

Many Christians accept the Bible as a book of truth - it contains truth - about things in this life, about history, and about things to come both in this world and in heaven.

Others may mock them as "virgin birthists" or "world wide floodist" or "resurrection-ists" or "creation-ists" etc.

But this does not change the fact that the Bible is true - and declares actual truth for this life and the life to come.

This is so glaringly obvious that a great many atheists upon reading the Bible and finding it to be factual - turn from atheism to Christianity on the "Bible is TRUE after all" model rather than "Well what do you know - the Bible really IS myth" model.

Dawkins, Provine, P.Z.Meyers and many other atheists admit that they used to be Christians until they discovered the Bible to be myth and THEN they became atheist/agnostic.

For many this is simply stating the obvious.

How about you?

in Christ,

Bob

For me I grew up in Christianity without faith that the bible is all factual. Today my relationship with God is the most important part of my life even though I don't believe the Bible to be accurate about many things. But as with many myths there was a basis of truth for the exaggerated stories. All things considered the bible is what we should expect.

 

[BobRyan]

The Genesis account may or may not be scientifically/historically accurate about some details of how creation came into being but the truth that inspired the biblical account is something I have no doubt about. When it is impossible to accurately describe something in the language we have at our disposal,then criticizing a book that attempts to express the inexpressible....

creation-ists believe the Bible is accurate in its description the historic account of the origin of all life on planet earth being created by God in 7 days.
Virgin birth-ists believe the Bible is accurate in its description of the historic account of the birth of Christ - literally God incarnate.
bodily-resurrection-ists - believe the Bible is accurate in its description of the historic account of the bodily resurrection of Christ.
fall-of-mankind-ists - believe the Bible is accurate in its description of the historic account of the fall of mankind from perfect sinless pair - with access to the tree of life - to sinful mankind in need of salvation.

Those who may suppose that all of these details are up for rejection - not actually true in real historic fact - are taking the core of Christianity and declaring that it is not actually true. (And of course a great many non-Christian religions claim that these details in the Christian religion are not actually true in real life).. My claim is not that those other non-Christian religions do not exist if they deny these basic facts of Christianity.

 

[grasping the after wind]

creation-ists believe the Bible is accurate in its description the historic account of the origin of all life on planet earth being created by God in 7 days.
Virgin birth-ists believe the Bible is accurate in its description of the historic account of the birth of Christ - literally God incarnate.
bodily-resurrection-ists - believe the Bible is accurate in its description of the historic account of the bodily resurrection of Christ.
fall-of-mankind-ists - believe the Bible is accurate in its description of the historic account of the fall of mankind from perfect sinless pair - with access to the tree of life - to sinful mankind in need of salvation.

Those who may suppose that all of these details are up for rejection - not actually true in real historic fact - are taking the core of Christianity and declaring that it is not actually true. (And of course a great many non-Christian religions claim that these details in the Christian religion are not actually true in real life).. My claim is not that those other non-Christian religions do not exist if they deny these basic facts of Christianity.

Then I suppose that if I do not believe that the sky is made of water you must say I am taking the core out of Christianity. As the Bible is historically literal and it literally says the sky is made of water.
Genesis 1:6-7
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Those that insist that every detail is historic fact usually hedge and try to rewrite the Bible making excuses why something literal is not meant literally on some point. Genesis literally says at one point that here are multiple gods (We) that banished Adam and Eve from Eden because they were afraid that Adam and Eve might become gods like themselves by eating the fruit of the tree of life. Are you saying if one does not believe that that is historic fact one is taking the core out of Christianity? Is the devil literally a talking snake? Did Jesus mean that we should literally eat his body and drink his blood? Should you literally cut off your arm if it offends? If one insists that every detail in the Bible is meant literally then one is not entitled to say "Well, but what that means is" as one is not taking that point as historically literal and is showing that they only want the things they want to be literal to be taken literally .

 

[AionPhanes]

Myths can, and often do, convey truths. Recognizing something as myth doesn't mean relegating it to the junk bin of falsehood.

 

[BobRyan]

Many Christians accept the Bible as a book of truth - it contains truth - about things in this life, about history, and about things to come both in this world and in heaven.

Others may mock them as "virgin birthists" or "world wide floodist" or "resurrection-ists" or "creation-ists" etc.

But this does not change the fact that the Bible is true - and declares actual truth for this life and the life to come.

This is so glaringly obvious that a great many atheists upon reading the Bible and finding it to be factual - turn from atheism to Christianity on the "Bible is TRUE after all" model rather than "Well what do you know - the Bible really IS myth" model.

Dawkins, Provine, P.Z.Meyers and many other atheists admit that they used to be Christians until they discovered the Bible to be myth and THEN they became atheist/agnostic.

For many this is simply stating the obvious.

How about you?

IT is a book of Truth - THE Truth.

But for many it is merely a book of "myths" - at least for atheists and other non-Christian groups.

 

[BobRyan]

Myths can, and often do, convey truths. Recognizing something as myth doesn't mean relegating it to the junk bin of falsehood.

so then you think Algebra is "myth" because after all - myth is "true"???

 

[BobRyan]

[quotre]
grasping the after wind said: ↑
The Genesis account may or may not be scientifically/historically accurate about some details of how creation came into being but the truth that inspired the biblical account is something I have no doubt about. When it is impossible to accurately describe something in the language we have at our disposal,then criticizing a book that attempts to express the inexpressible....
[/quote]

creation-ists believe the Bible is accurate in its description the historic account of the origin of all life on planet earth being created by God in 7 days.
Virgin birth-ists believe the Bible is accurate in its description of the historic account of the birth of Christ - literally God incarnate.
bodily-resurrection-ists - believe the Bible is accurate in its description of the historic account of the bodily resurrection of Christ.
fall-of-mankind-ists - believe the Bible is accurate in its description of the historic account of the fall of mankind from perfect sinless pair - with access to the tree of life - to sinful mankind in need of salvation.

Those who may suppose that all of these details are up for rejection - not actually true in real historic fact - are taking the core of Christianity and declaring that it is not actually true. (And of course a great many non-Christian religions claim that these details in the Christian religion are not actually true in real life).. My claim is not that those other non-Christian religions do not exist if they deny these basic facts of Christianity.

Then I suppose that if I do not believe that the sky is made of water you must say I am taking the core out of Christianity. As the Bible is historically literal and it literally says the sky is made of water.

Apparently you have a text saying "the sky is made OF water" and not FROM water.

Please quote it.

Man was made FROM the dust - but man is not made OF dust.

"Details matter" except when trying to toss the Bible under a bus (apparently).

Genesis 1:6-7
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Those that insist that every detail is historic fact usually hedge and try to rewrite the Bible making excuses why something literal is not meant literally on some point. Genesis literally says at one point that here are multiple gods (We) that banished Adam and Eve from Eden because they were afraid that Adam and Eve might become gods like themselves by eating the fruit of the tree of life.

Again you merely "quote you" for the exaggeration you need to project onto the Word of God.

Are you saying if one does not believe that that is historic fact one is taking the core out of Christianity?

First of all - twisting and wrenching the text as you have demonstrated above - is exactly what we get all day long from our atheist friends - few of THEM object to it.

Is that what you mean?

Is the devil literally a talking snake?

Rev 12 - Satan, the Devil - was the "serpent of old" (not because the devil "IS A" snake as you so much seem to prefer to wrench the text.)

Eve was literally talking to a serpent - though that serpent was a medium that the devil used. She did not see herself "Talking to the devil and being quite happy to do so".

All of this side-stepping on your part does not address the issue at hand. The bible is either a plastic/wax book that T.E.'s can twist to mean any odd thing they can imagine... or it is the Word of God.

Pick one.

 

[BobRyan]

For me I grew up in Christianity without faith that the bible is all factual. Today my relationship with God is the most important part of my life even though I don't believe the Bible to be accurate about many things. But as with many myths there was a basis of truth for the exaggerated stories. All things considered the bible is what we should expect.

Does God say His Word is trustworthy--- or simply myth, not at all trustworthy?

If you can't believe Him when He tells you in His Word about His work in creating life on Earth, and the fall of man, and the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ -- just exactly what do you believe??

 

[AionPhanes]

so then you think Algebra is "myth" because after all - myth is "true"???

Not everything true is stated in mythical format. Algebra generally isn't. One could use a mythic allegorical style narrative to convey a truth about Algebra I guess but Algebra itself still wouldn't be a myth.

 

[BobRyan]

Not everything true is stated in mythical format. Algebra generally isn't. One could use a mythic allegorical style narrative to convey a truth about Algebra I guess but Algebra itself still wouldn't be a myth.

So the Algebra is truth - but not myth?

And Gen 1-8 is written as a historic account - not as allegory - (in terms of the "Kind of literature that it is")

As it turns out -

there are Bible details so glaringly obvious that even our atheist friends notice them --

for example - the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

 

[AionPhanes]

So the Algebra is truth - but not myth?

And Gen 1-8 is written as a historic account - not as allegory - (in terms of the "Kind of literature that it is")

A good many myths are written as narrative accounts. The Labors of Hercules for example. One could read it and say "that's not a myth it's written as a narrative like it actually took place in history here on our earth!" Yet many pagan philosophers still accepted it as myth and beleived that it taught true moral principles and virtues. Said truths were best taught through evocative stories containing powerful archetypal symbols.

History as we know it now also wasn't a huge priority to the ancients. They often used quasi historical narratives mixing literal history with stories teaching ethical lessons, religious doctrines, etc...

The early Christian theologian Origen wrote about this fact. Many of the stories are modeled so as to express spiritual truths and lessons via the narratives and are not simply literalistic historical accounts. That's a secondary concern at best.

 

[Colter]

Does God say His Word is trustworthy--- or simply myth, not at all trustworthy?

If you can't believe Him when He tells you in His Word about His work in creating life on Earth, and the fall of man, and the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ -- just exactly what do you believe??

God didn't write the Bible, holy men did. Some more holy than others. I belive what I think is true.

 

[-57]

A good many myths are written as narrative accounts. The Labors of Hercules for example. One could read it and say "that's not a myth it's written as a narrative like it actually took place in history here on our earth!" Yet many pagan philosophers still accepted it as myth and beleived that it taught true moral principles and virtues. Said truths were best taught through evocative stories containing powerful archetypal symbols.

History as we know it now also wasn't a huge priority to the ancients. They often used quasi historical narratives mixing literal history with stories teaching ethical lessons, religious doctrines, etc...

The early Christian theologian Origen wrote about this fact. Many of the stories are modeled so as to express spiritual truths and lessons via the narratives and are not simply literalistic historical accounts. That's a secondary concern at best.

As an example let me present this...in order to reconcile evolutionism with the bible the Theo-Evo's must take portions of the Word of God and transform it into a "myth". As an example the opening chapters of Genesis are deemed not literal. Never really happened. A myth.

One has to ask the question, if Genesis is a myth then why did Paul base some instructions in a letter to Timothy on how women should conduct themselves in church based upon the order of creation and who was deceived?

1st Timothy 2:12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Would Paul base inspired instruction on an event that never happened? A Myth?

Note: This discussion is not about the roles of women in the church but rather the theological reason Paul used.

 

[AionPhanes]

As an example let me present this...in order to reconcile evolutionism with the bible the Theo-Evo's must take portions of the Word of God and transform it into a "myth". As an example the opening chapters of Genesis are deemed not literal. Never really happened. A myth.

One has to ask the question, if Genesis is a myth then why did Paul base some instructions in a letter to Timothy on how women should conduct themselves in church based upon the order of creation and who was deceived?

1st Timothy 2:12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Would Paul base inspired instruction on an event that never happened? A Myth?

Note: This discussion is not about the roles of women in the church but rather the theological reason Paul used.

I can think two possibilities off the top of my head.

1. The myth was thought to express a real spiritual-psychological truth about the human situation that was somehow transferable to a discussion of if a women should teach. That women are easily seduced, etc...**

2. He didn't recognize the fact that it wasn't a literal historical event.

** Might seem strange now a days but I've seen Stoic and other Hellenic philosophers make suggestions on virtous behavior using the actions of Hercules despite their knowledge of its mythic nature for example. They thought the myth expressed something about human nature.

 

[BobRyan]

Many Christians accept the Bible as a book of truth - it contains truth - about things in this life, about history, and about things to come both in this world and in heaven.

Others may mock them as "virgin birthists" or "world wide floodist" or "resurrection-ists" or "creation-ists" etc -- simply because they refuse to relegate the Word of God to that pile of literature called "myth".

But this does not change the fact that the Bible is true - and declares actual truth for this life and the life to come.

A good many myths are written as narrative accounts. The Labors of Hercules for example.

"Labors of Hercules" is a good example of how I do not characterize the "Bible". Not the sort of thing one chooses "for life or death" burned-at-the-stake-over-it decision making.

One could read it and say "that's not a myth it's written as a narrative like it actually took place in history here on our earth!"

Which is not how these guys view it -

And Gen 1-8 is written as a historic account - not as allegory - (in terms of the "Kind of literature that it is")

As it turns out -

there are Bible details so glaringly obvious that even our atheist friends notice them --

for example - the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors

Indeed. And they reject the Bible - but can 'still see' that in that text the author intended his readers to accept it as an historic account.

Same for virgin birth, and resurrection of Christ - accounts.

Those professors are not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As an example let me present this...in order to reconcile evolutionism with the bible the Theo-Evo's must take portions of the Word of God and transform it into a "myth". As an example the opening chapters of Genesis are deemed not literal. Never really happened. A myth.

One has to ask the question, if Genesis is a myth then why did Paul base some instructions in a letter to Timothy on how women should conduct themselves in church based upon the order of creation and who was deceived?

1st Timothy 2:12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
.

Indeed - "The very details" that are "most to be doubted" by the "Bible-is-myth" crowd - are the ones written into LAW Ex 20:11 about the 7 day creation week. The very details most doubted by the "Bible-is-myth" crowd - are the ones the NT authors appeal to as fact.

 

[BobRyan]

I can think two possibilities off the top of my head.

1. The myth was thought to express a real spiritual-psychological truth about the human situation that was somehow transferable to a discussion of if a women should teach. That women are easily seduced, etc...**

2. He didn't recognize the fact that it wasn't a literal historical event.

He didn't recognize the myth-and-speculation that it wasn't a literal historical account.

 

[BobRyan]

God didn't write the Bible, holy men did. Some more holy than others. I belive what I think is true.

Peter said "They spoke From GOD"

And In Mark 7:6-13 Jesus Himself calls it "The WORD of GOD"

In Hebrews 3 "The Holy Spirit said.." is how the quote of the Bible is prefixed.

 

[AionPhanes]

"Labors of Hercules" is a good example of how I do not characterize the "Bible". Not the sort of thing one chooses "for life or death" burned-at-the-stake over-it decision making.



Which is not how these guys view it -

And Gen 1-8 is written as a historic account - not as allegory - (in terms of the "Kind of literature that it is")

As it turns out -

there are Bible details so glaringly obvious that even our atheist friends notice them --

for example - the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================



Indeed. And they reject the Bible - but can 'still see' that in that text the author intended his readers to accept it as an historic account.

Same for virgin birth, and resurrection of Christ - accounts.

Those professors are not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

in Christ,

Bob

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the author/s of the Genesis account thought the creation took literal days. I think the overall narrative included much that was probably thought symbolic and would also say those may be the more relevant aspects now. Unless you can still beleive in a literally interpreted ancient pre scientific cosmology. The evidence I've seen makes that a dead option for me.

 

[AionPhanes]

Here is the reference from the writtings of the early Christian theologian Origen I referenced earlier regarding non historical narratives:

"...but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their “bodily” meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by the insertion of many. And this we find frequently to be the case in the legislative portions, where there are many things manifestly useful among the “bodily” precepts, but a very great number also in which no principle of utility is at all discernible, and sometimes even things which are judged to be impossibilities. Now all this, as we have remarked, was done by the Holy Spirit in order that, seeing those events which lie on the surface can be neither true nor useful, we may be led to the investigation of that truth which is more deeply concealed, and to the ascertaining of a meaning worthy of God in those Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by Him."