How can you believe in one part of the bible but not in another?

[Sketcher]

I hear talk that Mark (maybe Mathew, I could be muddling my M's) was the oldest document. and the other 2, show lots of plagiarism. The difference being that although Mark contained the miracles, it doesn't hold any teachings, which I believe would be your unknown source, Q, that has been partially proved. In that they have found a document containing teachings with no story, but not the teachings that were present in the gospels, ie: such text exists, they just haven't found the exact one. Hence document Q.

No evidence for Q, though.

There's allot of grey in life, the idea that the bible should be taken literally is very dishonest and misleading, and it tends to stifle any discussion that actually helps people grow in their faith.

I haven't found that to be the case. You can ask the big questions with people without denying Scripture or its authority. Besides, when it comes to people growing in their faith, there's more to it than discussion. There's practice. And if you can change the standard you have to live up to all the time, depending on what you think is right, there's not much challenge or growth there. I have noticed that many people who don't take the word seriously, don't believe in or submit to its authority, and interpret it the way they want to rather than digging in and finding the true interpretation have a tendency to fall away or at least be viewed as hypocrites. Now, there are some who do hold to Biblical literalism that do the same things, but what causes their falling away is the rejection of the truth in this book, and the refusal to put it into practice. So either way it is the rejection of the word that makes a casualty of faith, different people just get there differently.

 

[SparkyMaddie]

I've never felt this way~ I believe in The Word. So far in my life I have found no reason to doubt.