Why does the whole Bible have to be true?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I garner my wisdom, truth and knowledge from many sources. One of those sources is the Bible. However, if something in the Bible doesn't make sense, is contradictory, is illogical or is entirely ridiculous I don't feel some need to incorporate this piece of irrationality into my belief system purely because it must be assumed to be true on faith.

I am currently reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (141 AD). While reading it, I keep a pen on hand and highlight sections or lines that seem to speak to me or seem to hold some degree of wisdom. At the end of reading this book, it will be marked up in a similar way as my Bible and I will probably have discerned truth from it just as I have discerned truth from the Bible.

However, in Meditations, I have come across some passages that don't make sense or no longer apply to the 21st century. I do not cling to those passages on faith that they are true. Similarly, in my Bible there as some passages which don't make sense or no longer apply and I don't cling to those passages or attempt mental gymnastics to make them align with my intuition or rational faculties.

So often, people paint the Bible as being ALL true. And if it isn't ALL true, then it is ALL false. Both Christians and non-Christians do this. The Christian accepts it as all true while ignoring the parts that are contradictory or don't apply or don't make sense. The non-Christian rejects it all as false while ignoring the parts that contain insight, wisdom and value. Why must it be so black/white; either/or?

Isn't it better to take your wisdom and truth as the sum of a variety of sources and experiences rather than to take your wisdom and truth from a single source? Isn't it better to define yourself as the sum of your experiences rather than base your life on a single conversion event upon which your whole life rests?

What do you gain by taking the whole Bible as true? Why not use the brain given to you to realize that some parts of the Bible are likely not true (certainly not literally) or likely hold no exalted value?

What do you gain by exalting the Bible to some level above all other books? Why can't the Bible be treated just as any other book and given fair scrutiny just like any other book? Why can't you get truth from the Bible as well as getting truth from other sources? Why can't you discard parts of the Bible as untrue just as you do with other sources?

 

[iLogos]

If the whole Bible is not true then we are left with great uncertainty as to which parts are true and which parts are not true. I might then run across a part I don't like or have trouble reconciling and decide it must be one of the parts that is not true. Which severely weakens it all.

You have heard that a chain is as strong as it's weakest link? So to cast doubt even in one part of the Bible, weakens the whole Bible.

There is no denying there are difficult passages in the Bible, and they can be addressed various ways. Often a meaning is lost or so changed in translation that we end up with a different or awkward meaning that does not seem to apply to us or make sense. But even these can be resolved if you study the customs and manor and translations and full context.

Another problem is with figure of speeches. Some times we take them literally when we should not.

But we must have faith in the scriptures. Would God allow a erroneous error to be included in the scriptures? Is it not divinely inspired?

That is why you will run across staunch defenders of the scriptures! We can not discount it simply because we run across a passage we have trouble with.

 

[drich0150]

I garner my wisdom, truth and knowledge from many sources. One of those sources is the Bible. However, if something in the Bible doesn't make sense, is contradictory, is illogical or is entirely ridiculous I don't feel some need to incorporate this piece of irrationality into my belief system purely because it must be assumed to be true on faith.

I am currently reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (141 AD). While reading it, I keep a pen on hand and highlight sections or lines that seem to speak to me or seem to hold some degree of wisdom. At the end of reading this book, it will be marked up in a similar way as my Bible and I will probably have discerned truth from it just as I have discerned truth from the Bible.

However, in Meditations, I have come across some passages that don't make sense or no longer apply to the 21st century. I do not cling to those passages on faith that they are true. Similarly, in my Bible there as some passages which don't make sense or no longer apply and I don't cling to those passages or attempt mental gymnastics to make them align with my intuition or rational faculties.

So often, people paint the Bible as being ALL true. And if it isn't ALL true, then it is ALL false. Both Christians and non-Christians do this. The Christian accepts it as all true while ignoring the parts that are contradictory or don't apply or don't make sense. The non-Christian rejects it all as false while ignoring the parts that contain insight, wisdom and value. Why must it be so black/white; either/or?

Isn't it better to take your wisdom and truth as the sum of a variety of sources and experiences rather than to take your wisdom and truth from a single source? Isn't it better to define yourself as the sum of your experiences rather than base your life on a single conversion event upon which your whole life rests?

What do you gain by taking the whole Bible as true? Why not use the brain given to you to realize that some parts of the Bible are likely not true (certainly not literally) or likely hold no exalted value?

What do you gain by exalting the Bible to some level above all other books? Why can't the Bible be treated just as any other book and given fair scrutiny just like any other book? Why can't you get truth from the Bible as well as getting truth from other sources? Why can't you discard parts of the Bible as untrue just as you do with other sources?

What would be an example of an "untrue" part of the bible?

 

[someguy14]

...Bible have to be true

John 5:46-47
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

If the whole Bible is not true then we are left with great uncertainty as to which parts are true and which parts are not true. I might then run across a part I don't like or have trouble reconciling and decide it must be one of the parts that is not true. Which severely weakens it all.

It seems to me that we're already left with considerable uncertainty about the correct interpretation and/or translation of the Bible. Its funny how all Christians believe the Bible is "true" but then spend so much time debating about which interpretation is "true".

Also, perhaps give your rational faculties and reasoning abilities a bit more credit. When the Bible tells you to stone an engaged virgin for sleeping around, I'm pretty sure you can reject that rule based on your understanding of morality, love and reasonable punishment. You can go through the mental gymnastics of saying, "Oh but this rule was written for Jews and not for us and Jesus changed all that" or you could just reject that verse as ridiculous and save yourself the trouble of then wondering why you're exalting the Old Testament to such a degree when certain verses in it only apply to Jews. Or you could just reject it and save yourself the trouble of then wondering why you believe other commands in the Old Testament when you've just discarded this one. Or, you could just reject it and save yourself the trouble of then wondering why God gave them that rule in the first place if he would later change his mind. Or you could just reject it and save yourself the trouble of then wondering why an all-knowing God would change his mind. Or you could just reject it and save yourself the trouble of admitting that times change despite the unchanging truth of the Bible thus leading to a contradiction.

There are parts of the Bible that contain beautiful poetry that isn't necessarily a "true" or "false" situation but still contains wisdom and love. 1 Corinthians 13 always pops to mind. Its not a command, its not a historical fact. Its just poetry.

You have heard that a chain is as strong as it's weakest link? So to cast doubt even in one part of the Bible, weakens the whole Bible.

Not a fan of the analogy. If you see something that is clearly illogical or contradictory, then it does not weaken the WHOLE Bible to discard that piece of information. All you're doing is being intellectually honest by acknowledging that contradictions can't exist. Its not as if the discrepancies in whether Jesus' robe was scarlet (Matt 27:28, Greek: kokkinen) or purple (John 19:2, Greek: porphyroun) really de-legitimizes all the wonderful truth and insight contained within the 30,000+ verses. But at least be honest and recognize that its a contradiction and both cannot be simultaneously true.

Scarlet

Purple

There is no denying there are difficult passages in the Bible, and they can be addressed various ways. Often a meaning is lost or so changed in translation that we end up with a different or awkward meaning that does not seem to apply to us or make sense. But even these can be resolved if you study the customs and manor and translations and full context.

Please address 1 Timothy 2:12-15 "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. 15But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

Tell me exactly how you can be intellectually honest while also maintaining the truth of these verses while also supporting the roles of Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Christian female cops, etc. Paul first tells women that they should not have authority over a man. He does not make it contextual (i.e. within marriage) but rather makes a sweeping statement about all women of faith. Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and Christian female cops are all women who are/were in positions of authority that profess to being women of the faith. Hillary Clinton currently has authority over a great many men. Christian female cops are required to have authority over men in many situations by virtue of their profession. Either you support this verse as true or you don't support female police officers.

Here is the original Greek, let me know if its been poorly translated.

Here is a series of commentaries. Let me know which one you agree with.

And here is the whole 1 Timothy 2. Let me know if I've read it out of context.

Another problem is with figure of speeches. Some times we take them literally when we should not.

I don't think we should ever take a figure of speech literally. And how exactly do you discern which are figures of speech and which are not? Is there uncertainty in your interpretation? Does that uncertainty weaken your interpretation of the WHOLE Bible? If you disagree with a verse, can't you call it a figure of speech and therefore effectively "ignore" it or take it as "metaphorical"? Isn't there uncertainty in your interpretations? Aren't you ultimately picking and choosing the verses you wish to take literally based on some other sources of knowledge?

I would argue that uncertainty about one or two particular verses in the Bible does not de-legitimize the WHOLE Bible.

But we must have faith in the scriptures. Would God allow a erroneous error to be included in the scriptures? Is it not divinely inspired?

Is it? God must've allowed at least one error because Jesus' robe was either scarlet, purple or neither. If God didn't want a contradiction then he should have directed the writers to both put the same word (kokinnen or porphyroun). Its a mundane example, but its a contradiction nonetheless unless you start playing mental gymnastics and say that two robes were put on him or something which is just pure imagination and not Biblically-based at all.

That is why you will run across staunch defenders of the scriptures! We can not discount it simply because we run across a passage we have trouble with.

By discounting or acknowledging the contradiction or illogic in a verse you do not delegitimize the WHOLE Bible you are simply using your God-given rational faculties to understand that a contradiction cannot exist.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

What would be an example of an "untrue" part of the bible?

The story of Noah's ark can not be a literal event despite being written in a similar way to the Gospels as if it were a historical narrative with no indication that it is meant to be taken metaphorically.

I personally have no problem garnering what truth and meaning I can from it as a myth because I am not out there claiming that the words within the Bible are true.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

John 5:46-47
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

You're using the Bible to support the Bible's validity. I'm questioning the very notion that John 5:46-47 is true.

Or perhaps I've missed some deeper meaning to your post...

 

[Humble Pie]

In short, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's why it's considered by Christians to be infalliable.

 

[iLogos]

It seems to me that we're already left with considerable uncertainty about the correct interpretation and/or translation of the Bible. Its funny how all Christians believe the Bible is "true" but then spend so much time debating about which interpretation is "true".

Also, perhaps give your rational faculties and reasoning abilities a bit more credit. When the Bible tells you to stone an engaged virgin for sleeping around, I'm pretty sure you can reject that rule based on your understanding of morality, love and reasonable punishment. You can go through the mental gymnastics of saying, "Oh but this rule was written for Jews and not for us and Jesus changed all that" or you could just reject that verse as ridiculous and save yourself the trouble of then wondering why you're exalting the Old Testament to such a degree when certain verses in it only apply to Jews. Or you could just reject it and save yourself the trouble of then wondering why you believe other commands in the Old Testament when you've just discarded this one. Or, you could just reject it and save yourself the trouble of then wondering why God gave them that rule in the first place if he would later change his mind. Or you could just reject it and save yourself the trouble of then wondering why an all-knowing God would change his mind. Or you could just reject it and save yourself the trouble of admitting that times change despite the unchanging truth of the Bible thus leading to a contradiction.

There are parts of the Bible that contain beautiful poetry that isn't necessarily a "true" or "false" situation but still contains wisdom and love. 1 Corinthians 13 always pops to mind. Its not a command, its not a historical fact. Its just poetry.



Not a fan of the analogy. If you see something that is clearly illogical or contradictory, then it does not weaken the WHOLE Bible to discard that piece of information. All you're doing is being intellectually honest by acknowledging that contradictions can't exist. Its not as if the discrepancies in whether Jesus' robe was scarlet (Matt 27:28, Greek: kokkinen) or purple (John 19:2, Greek: porphyroun) really de-legitimizes all the wonderful truth and insight contained within the 30,000+ verses. But at least be honest and recognize that its a contradiction and both cannot be simultaneously true.

Scarlet

Purple



Please address 1 Timothy 2:12-15 "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. 15But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

Tell me exactly how you can be intellectually honest while also maintaining the truth of these verses while also supporting the roles of Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Christian female cops, etc. Paul first tells women that they should not have authority over a man. He does not make it contextual (i.e. within marriage) but rather makes a sweeping statement about all women of faith. Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and Christian female cops are all women who are/were in positions of authority that profess to being women of the faith. Hillary Clinton currently has authority over a great many men. Christian female cops are required to have authority over men in many situations by virtue of their profession. Either you support this verse as true or you don't support female police officers.

Here is the original Greek, let me know if its been poorly translated.

Here is a series of commentaries. Let me know which one you agree with.

And here is the whole 1 Timothy 2. Let me know if I've read it out of context.



I don't think we should ever take a figure of speech literally. And how exactly do you discern which are figures of speech and which are not? Is there uncertainty in your interpretation? Does that uncertainty weaken your interpretation of the WHOLE Bible? If you disagree with a verse, can't you call it a figure of speech and therefore effectively "ignore" it or take it as "metaphorical"? Isn't there uncertainty in your interpretations? Aren't you ultimately picking and choosing the verses you wish to take literally based on some other sources of knowledge?

I would argue that uncertainty about one or two particular verses in the Bible does not de-legitimize the WHOLE Bible.



Is it? God must've allowed at least one error because Jesus' robe was either scarlet, purple or neither. If God didn't want a contradiction then he should have directed the writers to both put the same word (kokinnen or porphyroun). Its a mundane example, but its a contradiction nonetheless unless you start playing mental gymnastics and say that two robes were put on him or something which is just pure imagination and not Biblically-based at all.



By discounting or acknowledging the contradiction or illogic in a verse you do not delegitimize the WHOLE Bible you are simply using your God-given rational faculties to understand that a contradiction cannot exist.

Some thing tells me you already made up your mind lol. I feel sorry for you. You have no foundation except speculation. Women should not have authority over man. And Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are both good proofs why too

But I think Paul was speaking more in the Church, and house hold. Just as Christ is the head of the Church which has been compared to a marriage, so should the husband be over the wife. That it is not that way contributes greatly to many issues we have today. I'm sure none of this will be acceptable for you.

I just love God's Word, all of it, even the hard stuff to digest. I really don't let any division by man throw me. I'm in it for the long haul. Bumps and all

 

[iLogos]

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.

Thomas à Kempis. (1996). The imitation of Christ (1–2). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.

 

[Sketcher]

The story of Noah's ark can not be a literal event despite being written in a similar way to the Gospels as if it were a historical narrative with no indication that it is meant to be taken metaphorically.

Why are you so sure of that?

 

[Sketcher]

Why can't you discard parts of the Bible as untrue just as you do with other sources?

I have no reason to believe that anybody today knows any better about God or morality than those who penned Scripture did.

 

[iLogos]

When you start doubting one thing, you start doubting more!

Jesus raised from the dead?

It all began in the garden of Eden,

"did God really say not to eat from that fruit?"

give him a inch and he will take another inch, and another, and another!

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Some thing tells me you already made up your mind lol. I feel sorry for you.

Rather than assuming I've made up my mind and feel sorry for me, it would be nice if you actually went through my post and addressed the issues I've raised or answer some of the questions I've asked to the best of your ability.

You have no foundation except speculation.

Indeed. I am plagued by skepticism. However I have faith in the truths I have found just as you have faith. I just put my faith in multiple sources rather than one source. And I never take any source as fully true because that doesn't solve any problems.

Women should not have authority over man. And Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are both good proofs why too

What about female cops?

But I think Paul was speaking more in the Church, and house hold. Just as Christ is the head of the Church which has been compared to a marriage, so should the husband be over the wife. That it is not that way contributes greatly to many issues we have today. I'm sure none of this will be acceptable for you.

Its interesting. I would be more inclined to agree with you if this verse had appeared in Corinthians or Ephesians in which Paul is writing to a church to guide them. But this is in Timothy where he's just writing to a friend.

And while gender roles fuzzy some things about marriage, I also don't think there was ever a "golden era" to look back to. You say that it contributes to the many issues we have today. Well, in the 1800s when gender roles were very clear cut and females were more submissive and with fewer rights, it may have been the "golden era" for the husband, but not so for the wife. On a slightly different note: is a woman's primary purpose to bear children?

I think marriage demands respect, honesty, open communication and love. I think the women should submit to the man out of love just as much as the man should submit to the female out of love. It is a mutual give-take relationship; a spiritual union; a life-long commitment. And it requires work by both parties.

The lack of any of these things is why marriages end up broken, unhappy or divorced. NOT because the wife fails to keep quiet and submit.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.

I like this quote. I think humility is important. Being able to recognize that you are wrong about something is a valuable asset. Being able to recognize that you have a finite mind and finite knowledge is an asset. I recognize that God's love is the thing we are all striving towards, knowingly or unknowingly. But I don't believe that by rejecting some verses in the Bible suddenly severs all connection I have with God and makes me an unbearable heathen.

It is often said that God's love is unconditional. I believe this. "Believe the Bible is true" is a doctrinal condition. And if you say I can not experience God, love God or am somehow vain or arrogant by not believing this conditional statement then perhaps your faith is conditional, but mine is not?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Why are you so sure of that?

Whenever someone makes a claim about the past, it has to be founded on a few basic assumptions:
1) Evidence is valuable and valid
2) The laws governing our world today do not change
3) Extrapolation can be made

If you don't accept these three assumptions then nothing I say will be valid to you. However, if you don't accept these three assumptions, then nothing about the past can be known or even guessed at.

1) If evidence is not valuable or valid then everything we see today in the present is not valuable and invalid and is thrown out.
2) If the laws governing our world today change, then nothing can be known about the past because the laws may have changed at any given point and you can dream up entirely different histories that have no basis except speculation about a random set of changing laws. This can lead to Last Thursdayism
3) If extrapolation can not be made then nothing can be known outside of the present.

So, why is Noah's ark not a literal event?

I'm in my last year of geophysics at university and if Noah's ark is true then about 90% of what I've learned is false or horribly misguided. There are no fountains of the deep judging from seismic imaging; seismic imaging of the earth is founded on the same math and physics that is used by geophysicist to find new oil. If the math and physics behind seismic imaging is wrong, then geophysicists have been getting lucky finding oil in the correct spots for the past 50 years.

If God brought the water into existence from nothing and then made it disappear back to nothing, then its strange that he hasn't ever done this since. Things don't appear and disappear in the world we live in. If God was so instrumental and active in this event so as to suspend all the physical laws he invented, then its weird that he hasn't done this ever again in such a visible display.

It would be impossible to fit two of every creature onto a boat. Unless you start dreaming up Harry Potter-style situations where the boat "gets bigger" when you go inside. Keep in mind, that such an imagination is not Biblically-based at all. The Bible gives the dimensions of the boat and makes no mention of it "getting bigger" when you go inside. Leave the imagination to JK Rowling. There are millions upon millions of species all over the world.

There is evidence of a large earthquake in the Mediterranean which may have caused a tsunami to hit the region of Israel around 5000 BC. This seems to be a logical starting place for such a myth to develop.

Etc.

 

[dbcsf]

I garner my wisdom, truth and knowledge from many sources. One of those sources is the Bible. However, if something in the Bible doesn't make sense, is contradictory, is illogical or is entirely ridiculous I don't feel some need to incorporate this piece of irrationality into my belief system purely because it must be assumed to be true on faith.

I am currently reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (141 AD). While reading it, I keep a pen on hand and highlight sections or lines that seem to speak to me or seem to hold some degree of wisdom. At the end of reading this book, it will be marked up in a similar way as my Bible and I will probably have discerned truth from it just as I have discerned truth from the Bible.

However, in Meditations, I have come across some passages that don't make sense or no longer apply to the 21st century. I do not cling to those passages on faith that they are true. Similarly, in my Bible there as some passages which don't make sense or no longer apply and I don't cling to those passages or attempt mental gymnastics to make them align with my intuition or rational faculties.

So often, people paint the Bible as being ALL true. And if it isn't ALL true, then it is ALL false. Both Christians and non-Christians do this. The Christian accepts it as all true while ignoring the parts that are contradictory or don't apply or don't make sense. The non-Christian rejects it all as false while ignoring the parts that contain insight, wisdom and value. Why must it be so black/white; either/or?

Isn't it better to take your wisdom and truth as the sum of a variety of sources and experiences rather than to take your wisdom and truth from a single source? Isn't it better to define yourself as the sum of your experiences rather than base your life on a single conversion event upon which your whole life rests?

What do you gain by taking the whole Bible as true? Why not use the brain given to you to realize that some parts of the Bible are likely not true (certainly not literally) or likely hold no exalted value?

What do you gain by exalting the Bible to some level above all other books? Why can't the Bible be treated just as any other book and given fair scrutiny just like any other book? Why can't you get truth from the Bible as well as getting truth from other sources? Why can't you discard parts of the Bible as untrue just as you do with other sources?

There are many approaches to the bible. Some do approach it the way you describe, other Christians do not.

I generally agree with you. There is a lot of truth to be found in the bible, as well as other sources.

Generally the disagreement among Christians can be described as infallibility vs. inspiration. All Christians believe the bible is inspired. Many also believe it to be infallible and others do not. The Christians who do not believe in infallibility are seeing it closer to the way you think.

I do not believe in infallibility. Therefore, probably you need to talk to someone else to see their reasons for supporting their view.

The original purpose of "exalting the Bible to some level above all other books" was to combat heresies, or non-Christian doctrines, which were competing with Christianity back in our formative years. These other Christian-like religions had their books also, which resembled Christian books in many ways. There were conflicts.

The church fathers identified specific writings to be used to develop approved theology in order to separate Christians from all the other similar groups.

Other written works may have been considered beneficial, but not sufficient to develop or evaluate orthodox theology.

Hope this helps.

 

[Banjo Jim]

Noah's ark not a literal event?

Sorry, but Jesus did refer to it..... so it really happened.

The "how" really isn't an issue for me.

 

[elman]

. All Christians believe the bible is inspired.

I think parts of the bible are divine truth. I believe parts of it are not true. I don't think all Christians believe all the bible is inspired.

 

[drich0150]

The story of Noah's ark can not be a literal event despite being written in a similar way to the Gospels as if it were a historical narrative with no indication that it is meant to be taken metaphorically.

Or we can look at the story as God intended we look at it.
In that the Ark didn't save anyone or anything by itself. The Ark and how long it took to build was a symbol the persistent faith it required Man to deem himself worthy to be salvaged from the coming flood.

The Ark is not a story about man's logistical abilities (In where or how to source raw materials nor man's ability to keep a planet's worth of animals alive.) It is a story about one family's faith to reach miles beyond what had been accomplished at that point in our collective history, and God's Saving grace that Had HIM (not the ARK) save Noah's corner of creation.

The story is not a metaphor in that the events happened. That saids we must also understand that Noah in building and stocking the Ark did not save creation from God. Noah's Faith provided a platform that allowed God to work a miracle. Through His faith, Through Noah's work on the Ark.

I personally have no problem garnering what truth and meaning I can from it as a myth because I am not out there claiming that the words within the Bible are true.

Again the story of Noah's ark is true in that the events happened as described. The problem one may have with the logical decimation of this story, is the recreation of said events without the Key element of God filling the gaps of our efforts. Meaning you can not look at just man's efforts as our "greatest philosophers" tend to do. The Story is about God's Righteousness, As well as His Mercy and Grace. If you take God out of the story you only have half of what happened.

This is why It is absolutely necessary to hold the Whole bible as the Whole and complete word of God. Because if you do not then you miss the whole picture of God that He has left for us. In doing so one is obligated to fill in the gaps on your own. If you are so inclined to do so, then know you will build your understanding of God to fit your own image and sense of righteousness rather than the other way around.

If something does not make sense to you then know it is not the bible in error. It maybe your perspective that needs another look.