Can you be a Christian and reject certain parts of the Bible?

[Achilles6129]

Can you be a Christian and only believe some parts of the Bible? For example, can you reject a global Noah's Flood, a six-day creation, a literal exodus, etc.? Could you reject other parts as well, like Christ walking on water? Discuss.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Can you be a Christian and only believe some parts of the Bible? For example, can you reject a global Noah's Flood, a six-day creation, a literal exodus, etc.? Could you reject other parts as well, like Christ walking on water? Discuss.

Well I never think about whether if was a literal six day creation or not. That has no bearing on my salvation ( in my view)
A global Noahs flood wouldn't either.
The problem you run into over Jesus walking on water us. If you reject it, you must believe the gospels contain error in them. I don't think it is easy to then build a sure and steady faith through reading gospels you believe contain error

Just my view of course

 

[RaymondG]

No you can't reject anything in the bible, but you can reject different interpretations. You can also choose to believe things are symbolic as opposed to literal.

 

[Achilles6129]

Well I never think about whether if was a literal six day creation or not. That has no bearing on my salvation ( in my view)
A global Noahs flood wouldn't either.
The problem you run into over Jesus walking on water us. If you reject it, you must believe the gospels contain error in them. I don't think it is easy to then build a sure and steady faith through reading gospels you believe contain error

Just my view of course

So it's not OK if the gospels contain error, but it is OK if other parts of the Bible contain error?

 

[Achilles6129]

No you can't reject anything in the bible, but you can reject different interpretations. You can also choose to believe things are symbolic as opposed to literal.

But at what point in time does a "different interpretation" really become rejecting the Bible itself?

 

[stuart lawrence]

So it's not OK if the gospels contain error, but it is OK if other parts of the Bible contain error?

A day or a thousand years is the same to God. So in my view you can take it as a literal six day creation or not.
Did the flood cover the whole earth, or only the whole earth man inhabited at the time?

Neither of these questions in anyway affect mans salvation, neither do they show the bible contains error, whichever view you take.
However, if you say the writers of the gospels wrote in error, you must believe the books through whom we read of Jesus words contain error. And our salvation comes through him.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Can you be a Christian and only believe some parts of the Bible? For example, can you reject a global Noah's Flood, a six-day creation, a literal exodus, etc.? Could you reject other parts as well, like Christ walking on water? Discuss.

I believe it all. Always have. Luckily I was never brain-washed in public schools.

 

[Aldebaran]

Can you be a Christian and only believe some parts of the Bible? For example, can you reject a global Noah's Flood, a six-day creation, a literal exodus, etc.? Could you reject other parts as well, like Christ walking on water? Discuss.

I hate to say it, but sometimes I come across thing in the bible that make me wonder. When I was reading the book of Mark, I noticed some things toward the end, such as:

Mark15:46
"So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb."

This seems to say that the stone covering the tomb was rolled into place by Joseph himself. How large could it have been if he was able to do it alone? But then we read:

Mark 16:2-4
2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
3and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I hate to say it, but sometimes I come across thing in the bible that make me wonder. When I was reading the book of Mark, I noticed some things toward the end, such as:

Mark15:46
"So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb."

This seems to say that the stone covering the tomb was rolled into place by Joseph himself. How large could it have been if he was able to do it alone? But then we read:

Mark 16:2-4
2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb
3and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

Joseph of Arimathea was a very rich man. It would have been his "word" to his servants, and they would have actually rolled the stone. He just authorized it.

 

[Aldebaran]

Joseph of Arimathea was a very rich man. It would have been his "word" to his servants, and they would have actually rolled the stone. He just authorized it.

Hmmm. Ok, I guess that makes sense.

 

[Shempster]

You don't necessarily have to reject subjects entirely just because you don't understand it....nobody else does either.
Let me ask you.....whats worse?.....misunderstanding a verse and holding one view as solid FACT or is it worse to doubt that explanation, yet not have a better one to replace it?
I would guess the first one is worse because it may be completely wrong.
It is perfectly OK to admit you just don't know. I have learned many many deep secrets about textx in the bible but there are many that I will admit that I do not know the correct view.
Its not really a big deal. It may be a big deal to say that Noah's flood is only an analogy when there is every possibility that it actually occurred. The truth is you were not there and I was not there and there is nobody alive today that was there so we can ask them.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You don't necessarily have to reject subjects entirely just because you don't understand it....nobody else does either.
Let me ask you.....whats worse?.....misunderstanding a verse and holding one view as solid FACT or is it worse to doubt that explanation, yet not have a better one to replace it?
I would guess the first one is worse because it may be completely wrong.
It is perfectly OK to admit you just don't know. I have learned many many deep secrets about textx in the bible but there are many that I will admit that I do not know the correct view.
Its not really a big deal. It may be a big deal to say that Noah's flood is only an analogy when there is every possibility that it actually occurred. The truth is you were not there and I was not there and there is nobody alive today that was there so we can ask them.

Do you have examples of what you are having trouble with like Aldebaran had? Someone on the forum could shed some light on it for you.

 

[Shempster]

Do you have examples of what you are having trouble with like Aldebaran had? Someone on the forum could shed some light on it for you.

I mentioned Noah's flood, but I am sure many question events like the talking Donkey and the staff turning to a snake. I only said that its OK to doubt them but we should not necessarily say they are wrong, that's all.

 

[Aldebaran]

I mentioned Noah's flood, but I am sure many question events like the talking Donkey and the staff turning to a snake. I only said that its OK to doubt them but we should not necessarily say they are wrong, that's all.

As for the donkey and snake examples, I think those would fall under what we would call miraculous or supernatural events. Those can't be explained in a scientific way that most people would accept.

 

[RaymondG]

But at what point in time does a "different interpretation" really become rejecting the Bible itself?

Never. If you are interpreting the bible, you have to believe it is true.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Can you be a Christian and only believe some parts of the Bible? For example, can you reject a global Noah's Flood, a six-day creation, a literal exodus, etc.? Could you reject other parts as well, like Christ walking on water? Discuss.

If I rejected parts of God's Word I personally wouldn't call myself a Christian. Please also bear in mind that God spoke to using both literal language and metaphoric. Ten Commandments : literal. Good Samaritan: metaphoric.

Also, Leviticus contains three types of laws, moral, ceremonial, and civil. Moral laws are binding on all of us. Civil laws regulated how the Israelites were to interract with each other and pagans (ex: lending money, slaves etc.). Ceremonial laws dealt with clean and unclean things, sacrifices, festivals etc. These were also for the Israelites (we don't have to sacrifice animals to atone for our sins).

 

[dqhall]

My mind will try to assign probability to certain passages instead of claim to know with absolute certainty. I think Christ may have walked on water and did miracles.

I do not believe God created the world within six days. I believe God has guided the development of species.

 

[Der Alte]

There is an old maxim about Bible interpretation, "If the plain sense makes good sense it is nonsense to look for any other sense." The converse would be "If the plain sense does not make good sense then we should look for another, i.e. figurative, symbolic etc. sense."
As for the talking donkey and serpent, not snake, I have seen people make a lifeless dummy and even a dog appear to talk. I don't think it would be any great problem for God, who after all did create the world, etc, to make creatures speak or appear to.
Someone mentioned the good Samaritan above. That is something within the realm of possibility. It could have been a real event which Jesus cited to illustrate the commandment to love your neighbor.

 

[Norbert L]

But at what point in time does a "different interpretation" really become rejecting the Bible itself?

I think that point happens when a Christian becomes someone like Bart Ehrman. When a Christian starts denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus into ethereal theological platitudes about what the kingdom of God represents here on earth now.

 

[Armoured]

Can you be a Christian and only believe some parts of the Bible? For example, can you reject a global Noah's Flood, a six-day creation, a literal exodus, etc.? Could you reject other parts as well, like Christ walking on water? Discuss.

Everyone rejects parts of the Bible. Since the Bible is self contradictory, it's impossible to accept the entire thing, at least literally.