How much of the bible do you believe to be fact?

mmbattlestar said:

The story of Noah and the flood. The Story of David and Goliath, The story of Adam and Eve ...etc. How much of the bible do you believe to be Biblical fact? How much do you believe is overly inflated or "hogwash"? I personally believe in the entire Bible, I believe It's all the word of the LORD and I believe in the entire Christian History. I find Christian Theology Interesting and I think It's important to homeschool our Children and to teach them the REAL History of how the world began and not all of the mumbo jumbo they teach you in schools today. I believe the entire Bible is the word and Law of the LORD. I believe, worship and dedicate my life to Yahweh. I believe that Jesus really was born from a Virgin. I believe that Jesus is the promised Savior from the Old Testament.

Click to expand...

I believe that the entire Bible is Truth. I don't believe Noah and the flood is a 'story', I don't believe David and Goliath is a 'story', I don't believe Adam and Eve is a 'story'. I believe the Bible conveys what Truth is necessary for our salvation. Did it happen exactly as written? Maybe, maybe not. Does it really matter? What is the point of the Creation accounts? Is it that they happened the way it is written, or is it that God created everything? Get it?

I deny the fact that Outerspace Exists, Or Aliens, Or Ghosts, or many of the things people believe today. I believe that God in the end, creates Babies and that babies made from unbelievers are Punishments from God and are not God blessed. I believe that we should be stuck in the "Dark" ages. I believe Heaven is in the clouds and, Hell doesn't exist (Yet). I believe that just because you can touch, feel, and hear something doesn't automatically mean that it exists. I believe in following the LORD instead of following man. I believe in the Bible. I believe in every single part of the bible.

What about the rest of CF? I'm curious. Is the Bible 100% fact, somewhat fact, or should the Bible not be taken into account at all? I'm curious about the opinions of all here at CF.

Click to expand...

The Bible is not a science textbook or a history text book. The fact is, Esther is a fiction, but the truth of what the story conveys is very evident.

I believe that 'Intellectual Debates' need to be dialed back when you go back to before the time of Abraham. Pre-Abraham, historically speaking, we are using our historical (proof) lifeline of post-Abraham evidence to validate the really old stuff in the Bible. Think about the Tower of Babel. Are you kidding me?? You can't historically defend that, much less the garden of Eden. Actually the Exodus years are probably the beginning of when you can historically debate.

So people get trapped into arguments about Adam & Eve, Babel, etc. They are faith based. But not empty faith, you're using your historical proof of the more recent to take the early stuff by faith (the resurrection being the strongest historical proof). I've even read books that talk about how the first and second chapters of Genesis are very linguistically different. Who knows about the super early stuff it's hard to get a grasp on it historically and linguistically as far as being able to prove it historically, don't even try (with the atheist).

Everyone should really read the book The Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser to get a better picture of the more obscure 'Confusing' passages of the OT. He's a conservative Christian who's a master of OT languages. He will blow your mind at his insights into what was going on in Babel, the garden of Eden, etc. But they are not arguments that you would bring to an atheist, his research is very technical and based on the Bible and other ancient Semitic languages and cultures that can be used for cross reference with the OT.

Personally stories about the flood confuse me. Why save the animals? God can just form them from dust again after the waters dry up. But I also think about outside the box theories. Let's face it pre-Abraham we are given a paragraph that can cover thousands of years, way too brief for historic details. I am of the belief that technology was very great before the flood. My biggest reason is that rock formations all across the world from the ancient world baffle modern day architects, sometimes they even say that with all our technology today they could not duplicate some of the things that ancient cultures built (remember that rocks are the only things that will survive thousands of years, micro chips would not survive). Anyway, I would not be shocked if God had animals come to Adam and he harvested their DNA and stored it in the ark, or it was done some kind of technological way that we would not even be able to do today. The linguistics in the flood account could surely be relayed to Mosses in a way to relate to a 1500 BC audience, and even to Mosses himself, as if he would understand harvesting DNA.

Quid est Veritas? said:

Constantine was a worshipper of Sol Invictus before likely converting on his deathbed. Mithraism was a mystery religion, so we have no way of knowing if someone was a participant therein.


The Church of the East was outside Roman control in Persia and the Jewish scrolls remained untouched. Further Diocletian's book-burning episodes were very specific and late, mostly isolated to the East under his caesar Galerius.

The extent versions of the Bible from areas that had not undergone persecution matched up well with the Constantinian version so this objection to the validity of scripture is unfounded.

Click to expand...

what does the Church of the East canon imply about its history?

John 5:2 speaks about the pool of Bethesda being in Jerusalem in the present tense [1]. So, I offer the following chronology for the writing of the Gospels:

• Mark -- 58-60 AD
• Luke/Acts -- 60-62 AD
• John, 1 John -- 62-64 AD

Now, the CotE rejects 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, 2-3 John. All of those date to, during, or perhaps even after, the Neronian Persecution:

• 2 Peter -- 64-65 AD
• Jude -- 65-66 AD
• 2-3 John -- 65-66 AD ??
• Revelation -- 66-67

Is it possible, that the Neronian persecution somehow cut off communication between western Churches of the Roman empire vs. eastern Churches of the Parthian empire? Such that the proto-CotE never received early copies of those "Neronian persecution era writings"? Such that they would then reject the same when they finally learned of them many years afterwards?? Were the eastern Churches isolated from the west, receiving no further written communications, after c.65 AD ???

[1] Dating the New Testament - John

Erik Nelson said:

what does the Church of the East canon imply about its history?

John 5:2 speaks about the pool of Bethesda being in Jerusalem in the present tense [1]. So, I offer the following chronology for the writing of the Gospels:

• Mark -- 58-60 AD
• Luke/Acts -- 60-62 AD
• John, 1 John -- 62-64 AD

Now, the CotE rejects 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, 2-3 John. All of those date to, during, or perhaps even after, the Neronian Persecution:

• 2 Peter -- 64-65 AD
• Jude -- 65-66 AD
• 2-3 John -- 65-66 AD ??
• Revelation -- 66-67

Is it possible, that the Neronian persecution somehow cut off communication between western Churches of the Roman empire vs. eastern Churches of the Parthian empire? Such that the proto-CotE never received early copies of those "Neronian persecution era writings"? Such that they would then reject the same when they finally learned of them many years afterwards?? Were the eastern Churches isolated from the west, receiving no further written communications, after c.65 AD ???

[1] Dating the New Testament - John

Click to expand...

Communications weren't cut off, as Parthian Churches continued to interact - hence defending Nestorius and such much later.

That said, it is possible that early Christians in Parthia were cut off around about the time of Nero and only re-established communication later. There was a big war going on between Rome and Parthia in the early years of Nero's reign, over Armenia. Normal trade and such was probably curtailed for the period, so could perhaps impact what became known or considered important at such a time via isolating effects

Neostarwcc said:

The story of Noah and the flood. The Story of David and Goliath, The story of Adam and Eve ...etc. How much of the bible do you believe to be Biblical fact? How much do you believe is overly inflated or "hogwash"?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call any of it hogwash. It is sufficient to reveal the reality of human nature, the reality of my own nature, the need for a better one, and the call to follow Christ - the Way, the Truth, the Life.

Neostarwcc said:

I deny the fact that Outerspace Exists

Click to expand...

That, I would call hogwash.

JackRT said:

Starting with Nicea he took control of the various Christian churches picking and choosing amongst various competing doctrines to determine which were acceptable and which were heretical, With him began the greatest persecution the world has ever seen --- the Christian persecution of the pagans and heretics.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I don't think so. I think what was going on was a branch of Christianity had formed under Arius, which was denying the divinity of Christ and interpreting him as a Created being. "There was a time when he was Not". So, Christianity came very close to becoming something more Mormon-like I believe. Constantine didn't really understand the fighting between the sects, and emperors don't like things like that in their empires. He called councils of the bishops to work things out.

One Man’s Joy Stood Against the Whole World: Athanasius (298–373)

(there are probably better articles, but check out Athanasius on your own, he was extremely influential)

Most of the barbarian tribes, Visigoths and others, went Arian during this time, eventually sacking Rome and leading to the fall of the western Roman empire. Heh. Oops!

Erik Nelson said:

what does the Church of the East canon imply about its history?

John 5:2 speaks about the pool of Bethesda being in Jerusalem in the present tense [1]. So, I offer the following chronology for the writing of the Gospels:

• Mark -- 58-60 AD
• Luke/Acts -- 60-62 AD
• John, 1 John -- 62-64 AD

Now, the CotE rejects 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, 2-3 John. All of those date to, during, or perhaps even after, the Neronian Persecution:

• 2 Peter -- 64-65 AD
• Jude -- 65-66 AD
• 2-3 John -- 65-66 AD ??
• Revelation -- 66-67

Is it possible, that the Neronian persecution somehow cut off communication between western Churches of the Roman empire vs. eastern Churches of the Parthian empire? Such that the proto-CotE never received early copies of those "Neronian persecution era writings"? Such that they would then reject the same when they finally learned of them many years afterwards?? Were the eastern Churches isolated from the west, receiving no further written communications, after c.65 AD ???

[1] Dating the New Testament - John

Click to expand...

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, was appointed by Constantine to prepare Bibles. He chose what books to include. Eusebius also wrote, "Ecclesiastical History," in about 325 AD. He wrote of things from sources that existed in his day, but are no longer in print. He wrote that some church leaders stated Revelation was not written by the apostle John, but is a forgery written by Cerinthus.

Petros2015 said:

(there are probably better articles, but check out Athanasius on your own, he was extremely influential)

Click to expand...

I didn't realize Athanasius role in "cannon" (below)

Biblical canon - Wikipedia

Apostolic Fathers

A four-gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus in the following quote: "It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four-quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh… Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things… For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform… These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those [I mean] who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer."[26]

Alexandrian Fathers
Origen of Alexandria (184/85–253/54), an early scholar involved in the codification of the Biblical canon, had a thorough education both in Christian theology and in pagan philosophy, but was posthumously condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 since some of his teachings were considered to be heresy. Origen's canon included all of the books in the current New Testament canon except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John.[30]

He also included the Shepherd of Hermas which was later rejected. The religious scholar Bruce Metzger described Origen's efforts, saying "The process of canonization represented by Origen proceeded by way of selection, moving from many candidates for inclusion to fewer."[31] This was one of the first major attempts at the compilation of certain books and letters as authoritative and inspired teaching for the Early Church at the time, although it is unclear whether Origen intended for his list to be authoritative itself.

In his Easter letter of 367, Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament–27 book–proto-canon,[32] and used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regard to them.[33] Athanasius also included the Book of Baruch, as well as the Letter of Jeremiah, in his Old Testament canon. However, from this canon, he omitted the Book of Esther.

dqhall said:

Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, was appointed by Constantine to prepare Bibles. He chose what books to include. Eusebius also wrote, "Ecclesiastical History," in about 325 AD. He wrote of things from sources that existed in his day, but are no longer in print. He wrote that some church leaders stated Revelation was not written by the apostle John, but is a forgery written by Cerinthus.

Click to expand...

Charles B. Waite in his History of the Christian Religion to the Year 200 writes of Eusebius: "No one has contributed more to Christian history, and no one is guilty of more errors. The statements of this historian are made, not only carelessly and blunderingly, but in many instances in falsification of the facts of history. Not only the most unblushing falsehoods, but literary forgeries of the vilest character darken the pages of his writing."

JackRT said:

Charles B. Waite in his History of the Christian Religion to the Year 200 writes of Eusebius: "No one has contributed more to Christian history, and no one is guilty of more errors. The statements of this historian are made, not only carelessly and blunderingly, but in many instances in falsification of the facts of history. Not only the most unblushing falsehoods, but literary forgeries of the vilest character darken the pages of his writing."

Click to expand...

Grreeeeeeaaaaaattt. lol

JackRT said:

Charles B. Waite in his History of the Christian Religion to the Year 200 writes of Eusebius: "No one has contributed more to Christian history, and no one is guilty of more errors. The statements of this historian are made, not only carelessly and blunderingly, but in many instances in falsification of the facts of history. Not only the most unblushing falsehoods, but literary forgeries of the vilest character darken the pages of his writing."

Click to expand...

is it correct & relevant to observe that Eusebius subscribed to Arianism ?

Erik Nelson said:

is it correct & relevant to observe that Eusebius subscribed to Arianism ?

Click to expand...

Eusebius - Wikipedia

There's a lot here, and some back and forth; he and Athanasius really didn't get along.
I'm not sure about Charles B. Waite's assessment of him and would have to do more due diligence to see what it is based on and if I agree . It might be largely based on the Life of Constantine, which I suspect might have been very 'polished'. Euesbius had a large body of work though, some might have been better than others or biased strongly by the Arianism conflict that was swinging back and forth a lot during his time over the course of decades and out lived Arius by quite some time. The two sides would try to get along, fail, Constantine supported the anti-Arian concensus initially, but didn't fully suppress it, and I think some would pay lip-service to Trinitarian views... and then Arian would swing back into dominance, Athansius would get exiled, fight tooth and nail to bring Trinitarian back into line. It was a really interesting time to look at what was going on and how people were thinking.

One of Athansius works is "On the Incarnation" which is a fascinating read for any Christian
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/incarnation_st_athanasius.pdf

Origen was also an interesting character, kind of pre-dating everyone by a few decades. Eventually excommunicated post-humously but wrote a huge body of work and believed in controversial things like the (possibility) of eventual universal redemption for Satan and fallen angels, the pre-existance of human souls.

Origen - Wikipedia

Almost all information about Origen's life comes from a lengthy biography of him in Book VI of the Ecclesiastical History written by the later Christian historian Eusebius (c. 260 – c. 340).[20] Eusebius portrays Origen as the perfect Christian scholar and as a literal saint.[20] Eusebius, however, wrote this account almost fifty years after Origen's death and had access to few reliable sources on Origen's life, especially his early years.[20] Anxious for more material about his hero, Eusebius recorded events based on only unreliable hearsay evidence and frequently made speculative inferences about Origen based on the sources he had available.[20] Nonetheless, scholars can reconstruct a general impression of Origen's historical life by sorting out the parts of Eusebius's account that are accurate from those that are inaccurate.[21]

==

Eusebius succeeded Agapius as Bishop of Caesarea soon after 313 and was called on by Arius who had been excommunicated by his bishop Alexander of Alexandria. An episcopal council in Caesarea pronounced Arius blameless.[33] Eusebius, a learned man and famous author, enjoyed the favour of the Emperor Constantine. Because of this he was called upon to present the creed of his own church to the 318 attendees of the Council of Nicaea in 325."[34] However, the anti-Arian creed from Palestine prevailed becoming the basis for the Nicene Creed.[35]

The theological views of Arius, that taught the subordination of the Son to the Father, continued to be a problem. Eustathius of Antioch strongly opposed the growing influence of Origen's theology as the root of Arianism. Eusebius, an admirer of Origen, was reproached by Eustathius for deviating from the Nicene faith. Eusebius prevailed and Eustathius was deposed at a synod in Antioch.

However, Athanasius of Alexandria became a more powerful opponent and in 334, he was summoned before a synod in Caesarea (which he refused to attend). In the following year, he was again summoned before a synod in Tyre at which Eusebius of Caesarea presided. Athanasius, foreseeing the result, went to Constantinople to bring his cause before the Emperor. Constantine called the bishops to his court, among them Eusebius. Athanasius was condemned and exiled at the end of 335. Eusebius remained in the Emperor's favour throughout this time and more than once was exonerated with the explicit approval of the Emperor Constantine. After the Emperor's death (c.337), Eusebius wrote the Life of Constantine,[36] an important historical work because of eye witness accounts and the use of primary sources. Eusebius died c.339.[37]

Petros2015 said:

Eusebius - Wikipedia

There's a lot here, and some back and forth; he and Athanasius really didn't get along.
I'm not sure about Charles B. Waite's assessment of him and would have to do more due diligence to see what it is based on and if I agree . It might be largely based on the Life of Constantine, which I suspect might have been very 'polished'. Euesbius had a large body of work though, some might have been better than others or biased strongly by the Arianism conflict that was swinging back and forth a lot during his time over the course of decades and out lived Arius by quite some time. The two sides would try to get along, fail, Constantine supported the anti-Arian concensus initially, but didn't fully suppress it, and I think some would pay lip-service to Trinitarian views... and then Arian would swing back into dominance, Athansius would get exiled, fight tooth and nail to bring Trinitarian back into line. It was a really interesting time to look at what was going on and how people were thinking.

One of Athansius works is "On the Incarnation" which is a fascinating read for any Christian
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/incarnation_st_athanasius.pdf

Origen was also an interesting character, kind of pre-dating everyone by a few decades. Eventually excommunicated post-humously but wrote a huge body of work and believed in controversial things like the (possibility) of eventual universal redepemption for Satan and fallen angels pre-existance of human souls.

Origen - Wikipedia

Almost all information about Origen's life comes from a lengthy biography of him in Book VI of the Ecclesiastical History written by the later Christian historian Eusebius (c. 260 – c. 340).[20] Eusebius portrays Origen as the perfect Christian scholar and as a literal saint.[20] Eusebius, however, wrote this account almost fifty years after Origen's death and had access to few reliable sources on Origen's life, especially his early years.[20] Anxious for more material about his hero, Eusebius recorded events based on only unreliable hearsay evidence and frequently made speculative inferences about Origen based on the sources he had available.[20] Nonetheless, scholars can reconstruct a general impression of Origen's historical life by sorting out the parts of Eusebius's account that are accurate from those that are inaccurate.[21]

==

Eusebius succeeded Agapius as Bishop of Caesarea soon after 313 and was called on by Arius who had been excommunicated by his bishop Alexander of Alexandria. An episcopal council in Caesarea pronounced Arius blameless.[33] Eusebius, a learned man and famous author, enjoyed the favour of the Emperor Constantine. Because of this he was called upon to present the creed of his own church to the 318 attendees of the Council of Nicaea in 325."[34] However, the anti-Arian creed from Palestine prevailed becoming the basis for the Nicene Creed.[35]

The theological views of Arius, that taught the subordination of the Son to the Father, continued to be a problem. Eustathius of Antioch strongly opposed the growing influence of Origen's theology as the root of Arianism. Eusebius, an admirer of Origen, was reproached by Eustathius for deviating from the Nicene faith. Eusebius prevailed and Eustathius was deposed at a synod in Antioch.

However, Athanasius of Alexandria became a more powerful opponent and in 334, he was summoned before a synod in Caesarea (which he refused to attend). In the following year, he was again summoned before a synod in Tyre at which Eusebius of Caesarea presided. Athanasius, foreseeing the result, went to Constantinople to bring his cause before the Emperor. Constantine called the bishops to his court, among them Eusebius. Athanasius was condemned and exiled at the end of 335. Eusebius remained in the Emperor's favour throughout this time and more than once was exonerated with the explicit approval of the Emperor Constantine. After the Emperor's death (c.337), Eusebius wrote the Life of Constantine,[36] an important historical work because of eye witness accounts and the use of primary sources. Eusebius died c.339.[37]

Click to expand...

John 5:19 (WEB)
Jesus therefore answered them, "Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.

dqhall said:

John 5:19 (WEB)
Jesus therefore answered them, "Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.

Click to expand...

yes, that was before The Father raised the Son

Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

dqhall said:

John 5:19 (WEB)
Jesus therefore answered them, "Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.

Click to expand...

Heh. John 14:8

8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

Erik Nelson said:

yes, that was before The Father raised the Son

Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

Click to expand...

When Jesus was on earth, he taught he was like a vine and his students were like branches receiving support from the vine. Jesus described his father as being like one who tends a vine. A vine was pruned and fertilized in order to increase its production. Since Jesus ascended, the Holy Spirit was sent to minister to people.

I believe people should study the Gospels as this is what remains from Jesus' teachings on earth. Since the Holy Spirit was given to believers, there is a witness that is greater than the Bible. After reading 1 Corinthians 14 one might agree that being able to speak words of prophesy is greater than being fluent in 8 languages.

Quid est Veritas? said:

I believe that the Bible is the word of God and brings Salvation.

. Other areas are closer to myth, like Jonah. There is a whole spectrum from fully historical to almost myth present within the Bible.

Click to expand...

Jesus spoke of Jonah as a real person who spent three days in the belly of a real fish, so if Jesus spoke of him in that way, then Jonah was a definite person who lived in a period of history.

dqhall said:

The story of Noah was based on earlier Mesopotamian flood legends dating back to Sumerian times c. 4000 years ago. There was a legend of a man and his family were given advanced warning of a coming flood and build a boat. In ancient times there were floods on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that caused loss of property and life. The flood legends were under titles such as the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Epic of Atrahasis. The important thing about the flood of Noah story is it teaches God is omnipotent and may warn people in advance of impending disaster in order to save them. Jesus may have referred to this message of God's salvation rather than to the accuracy of the Noah flood story.

II Kings has some parts verified by the records of other nations near Israel. I find there is much useful information in the New Testament.

Click to expand...

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible through direct revelation from God. In fact, the other stories grew out of the actual events that Moses described, not the other way around. True, there were other stories floating around, but God gave Moses the actual facts.

JackRT said:

I believe that the Noah Flood story is loosely based on the "tribal memory" of a disastrous local flood somewhere in the Middle East. I think that the Sodom and Gomorrah story may also be based on a similar memory of a natural disaster. It is known biblically that the two towns were located near the Dead Sea and they made a prosperous living mining bitumen (pitch). This same area is also known to have near surface pockets of natural gas which will occasionally vent to the surface when triggered by earth tremors. My suspicion is that this is what happened. Cooking fires ignited the venting gas. The resulting conflagration would certainly appear to the credulous mind to be some sort of fiery divine retribution. This same area is also known for naturally formed pillars of salt. We now have all the ingredients for a dramatic morality tale.

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that Jesus was mistaken when He referred to Sodom and Gomorrah and the judgment of God that rained down upon those cities (not some natural gas explosion on the surface). Was He lying when He said: "Remember Lot's wife", maintaining that she was a real person turned into a pillar of salt because she disobeyed the instruction of the angel not to look back at the cities as the judgment fell on them. Jesus used her example to say that once a person received Him as Saviour, not to look back to the world.

SnowyMacie said:

The only things that I hold to be 100% historical fact are the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, with a close second being Acts, which I would call historically reliable. In other words, it may not have every single little detail correct, but enough of it is there and accurate to say that it's a good enough source to use as history.

When it comes to Old Testament events, I believe that most of it is based on historical events/people, but ultimately the event became legend and ultimately written down in scripture as allegories. We see this in non-Biblical history as well, for example King Arthur. Even more back then than with King Arthur's first historians, they were not as concerned with trying to get all of the facts correct, but the message and point of the story was what was important to them. Personally, I think the flood story is reflective of many flood stories from the ancient near-East as a result of the common floods that used to occur along the Tigris and Euphrates Rives, and likely there was one season that was much worse than normal. That doesn't change the message in the story at all about God's redemption and judgment. That's the same with the Exodus, Job, Ruth, David, etc.

There are others that are myth, like Genesis 1. Obviously, God created the world, but we know from science that it didn't happen in six days, but instead he created, and continues to create, over billions and millions of years. That doesn't change the message that God created this world and universe good, than mankind was made with a purpose and ultimately rebelled against God.

Click to expand...

If Genesis 1 is myth as you say, then the rest of it has to be myth as well. You can't extract part of a book and say it is myth, while the rest of it is history. If the first 11 chapters of Genesis is myth, then there was no Adam or Eve - just a couple of neanderthals suddenly given an intelligence. There was no garden of Eden, no deception by Satan and no fall. This means that the world has always been how it was first formed or created. If there was no fall, then mankind is not sinful but always had the knowledge of good and evil. Also, if there was no fall, then Jesus was just a good man and a prophet who died on a Roman cross. There is therefore no redemption, no born again experience, no baptism with the Spirit, and the gospel is nothing but a set of morals for self improvement. So there can be no heaven or hell, and when someone dies, there is oblivion.

This is the result if the first 11 chapters of Genesis are just a myth taken from pagan tribal and cultural stories.