I recall being a young lad in Church when I asked my youth pastor about a certain event in the Bible. I can't remember which event it was but I asked him if he believed it really happened.

His answer was quick and firm, "Yes I do...if I can't trust one story in the Bible, then the book is useless."

I am curious then, let's pretend somehow we come up with vital evidence that proves [as much as proof can] there never was a global flood. I'm not sure what the evidence is but let's say it would be something shockingly strong.

Would you lose your faith completely or at all? Would you simply say "Well perhaps the story was meant to be taken figuratively" ie Jesus = Ark

I'm just curious how people [Christians obviously] would react.

Do you have proof of something that isn't true in the Bible?

Actually there has never been a shred of scientific eveidence that disproves the bible. If there was I can assure you that the "New York Times of The Anti-Christ" would run full front page for a full 60 mo.(5 yrs)
O contrare my friend....every single place of geography (Mts, Cities, Towns, walls, rivers, etc.)
As far as the flood there were two and proof of both are found in the Grand Canyon digs. Hope this helps.

Do you have proof of something that isn't true in the Bible?


My question was hypothetical. I guess I could ask my question another way, "Does the usefullness or validity of the Bible rest on every story being historically accurate [a real event]?"

Actually there has never been a shred of scientific eveidence that disproves the bible. If there was I can assure you that the "New York Times of The Anti-Christ" would run full front page for a full 60 mo.(5 yrs)
O contrare my friend....every single place of geography (Mts, Cities, Towns, walls, rivers, etc.)
As far as the flood there were two and proof of both are found in the Grand Canyon digs. Hope this helps.


You mean to say the Grand Canyon is a result of the flood?

Ciscokid, I get what you're saying.
My faith is based in God himself. So, hypothetically, if it turned out that all the proof said that the accounts of certain stories are false (a time machine maybe?) I would still have faith. I like my way of life and am comforted by the fact that Jesus is my savior and God is great. So, I would still have faith. I think I would possibly say, "OK, so it's a parable". Or I may decide the evidence is wrong. Whatever the case I would apply it to my faith in God, which can't be shaken at all...

My question was hypothetical. I guess I could ask my question another way, "Does the usefullness or validity of the Bible rest on every story being historically accurate [a real event]?"
I'm sorry but I don't understand the point of playing hypothetical games with the Word of our Creator. :confused

I recall being a young lad in Church when I asked my youth pastor about a certain event in the Bible. I can't remember which event it was but I asked him if he believed it really happened.

His answer was quick and firm, "Yes I do...if I can't trust one story in the Bible, then the book is useless."

I am curious then, let's pretend somehow we come up with vital evidence that proves [as much as proof can] there never was a global flood. I'm not sure what the evidence is but let's say it would be something shockingly strong.

Would you lose your faith completely or at all? Would you simply say "Well perhaps the story was meant to be taken figuratively" ie Jesus = Ark

I'm just curious how people [Christians obviously] would react.

If one story was shown to be wrong would we lose faith in the rest of the bible...no.

Some Christians take some stories in the bible as literal and some take them like a parable...a lesson to be learned but its not suppose to be literal. There are probably some Christians that don't think the flood was global but only in that part of the world...which was the world to Noah...

See what I mean? So a 'blow' to one story in the bible out of the thousands in it would mean very little I think...

Ranger, I get what you're saying.
My faith is based in God himself. So, hypothetically, if it turned out that all the proof said that the accounts of certain stories are false (a time machine maybe?) I would still have faith. I like my way of life and am comforted by the fact that Jesus is my savior and God is great. So, I would still have faith. I think I would say, "OK, so it's a parable" And that would be that.


Thank you for responding, I doubt that you are alone. I'm just curious if there are many who would abandon the faith altogether. I wouldn't expect many but I clearly recall my pastor stating it was all or nothing.

If one story was shown to be wrong would we lose faith in the rest of the bible...no.

Some Christians take some stories in the bible as literal and some take them like a parable...a lesson to be learned but its not suppose to be literal. There are probably some Christians that don't think the flood was global but only in that part of the world...which was the world to Noah...

See what I mean? So a 'blow' to one story in the bible out of the thousands in it would mean very little I think...


Ok thanks for the feedback, I never posed this question before so I wasn't really sure how folks would feel.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the point of playing hypothetical games with the Word of our Creator. :confused


I certainly wasn't intending to play games with anyone. I'm just trying to gauge how critical it is for all events to be historical/literal events. If this question is upsetting feel free to ignore it.

I would think I would say something like, "Let's wait till all the evidence is in."

By that, I mean things like the "Scientists have discovered all oils are bad and create health problems." When that was the latest "discovery" (and holy writ to most doctors), I continued using my canola oil and my olive oil. The body NEEDS a certain amount of oil to assilimilate vitamins and minerals correctly. And what do you know, several years later, the announcement, "Olive oil and certain other oils actually HELP lower cholesterol."

It just depends on what is the latest and greatest discovery of the day. God has always been and will always be. In His perfect time we will know but not before.

Just my opinion -
V

I certainly wasn't intending to play games with anyone. I'm just trying to gauge how critical it is for all events to be historical/literal events. If this question is upsetting feel free to ignore it.
Oh I'm not upset, i was just trying to understand the point. Ftr, I'm with Moonglow on this.

I personally think that everything that is in our Bible today, is there for a reason, and that reason is that God allowed it to be so. To me, the Bible is a spiritual book, most of all, and teaches us spiritual truth using physical people and events. It's about God, and how He relates to people, and there are principles there that are eternal, and for that alone, the Bible deserves to be treasured above other books. It was never meant to be a "scientific" anything to begin with. There are other books for that. It doesn't mean that the stories are confabulated, but it means that the focus is on God and His dealings with mankind and should be noted and taken as such, and learned from.

Having said that, as far as physical accuracy goes, I think that man-made science is always arguing about all sort of things, and all the time studies are being published that are contradicting other studies and updating previous ones and new information is being released constantly. I also think that much of it relies on data interpretation, and so one expert's best guess is as good as another's. Any time you have people dealing with data and "evidence" there is a lot of room for error depending on one's approach and viewpoint and amount of true objectivity. Does that mean I don't look at these things? Well, of course I do. Do I depend on them for my eternal well-being and do I change my attitude towards Scriptural accounts every time some "expert" has some new interpretation? No, absolutely not. That doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to physical discoveries. It just means I give them their place, and to me, that is below the eternal and spiritual.

If a certain story in the Bible was found or "proven" somehow to have happened differently than recorded (or to not have happened at all), like others here I'd say "wait until all the evidence is in", and go about my life as I do now, hanging onto Christ. I wouldn't be letting go of the one thing that sustains me, my faith, just because a writer in the Old Testament perhaps wrote something that we can't understand or fathom or believe today. I believe God's behind the Bible, and what was put into it. He isn't wrong. Our limited human minds, science, technology and understanding might be, however.

God bless, as you continue to seek Him.

I recall being a young lad in Church when I asked my youth pastor about a certain event in the Bible. I can't remember which event it was but I asked him if he believed it really happened.

His answer was quick and firm, "Yes I do...if I can't trust one story in the Bible, then the book is useless."

I am curious then, let's pretend somehow we come up with vital evidence that proves [as much as proof can] there never was a global flood. I'm not sure what the evidence is but let's say it would be something shockingly strong.

Would you lose your faith completely or at all? Would you simply say "Well perhaps the story was meant to be taken figuratively" ie Jesus = Ark

I'm just curious how people [Christians obviously] would react.
... Your question just comes at the serious Christian from a totally incorrect angle. You seek an answer that will reflect truth by asking a question that, when examined closely, is based on a presumption. As a Christian I deal with what is instead of what might be because dealing with theories is exactly the method that is used to take the world to the point that we are involved with at the moment.
... You must first seek the truth about the reliability of the scriptures first and in doing that you will find that during the past twenty centuries men have constantly worked to take the scriptures apart and yet in every case they have ultimately proved the very points they were attacking. To date, there is not one reason, established, to disregard the Bible. The same cannot be said for any other document claiming to deal with or to be from God.
... If you ever find one credible piece of evidence that the flood did not take place you should come back and present it to us but not before the scientific community is finished with it. If you have any questions about God that do not require a Christian to step away from their faith to answer you will find many that will help you.

Good question. Personally for me, if it is solidly proven that the Flood was confined in the Mesopotamian river valley, for example, I would have no faith-related problems with it. The authors were writing from their own vantage point about their perceptions of the Lord. This is why through the Bible, man's perception of the concept of God is in development. We see at first people put to death for reasons lacking a moral element, then a lowering of importance of the temple cultus compared to obedience, and then new ideas about the Redeemer God.

I recall being a young lad in Church when I asked my youth pastor about a certain event in the Bible. I can't remember which event it was but I asked him if he believed it really happened.

His answer was quick and firm, "Yes I do...if I can't trust one story in the Bible, then the book is useless."

I am curious then, let's pretend somehow we come up with vital evidence that proves [as much as proof can] there never was a global flood. I'm not sure what the evidence is but let's say it would be something shockingly strong.

Would you lose your faith completely or at all? Would you simply say "Well perhaps the story was meant to be taken figuratively" ie Jesus = Ark

I'm just curious how people [Christians obviously] would react.


If something isn't true, we have no business believing it.

I would still believe in the literal biblical account in spite of all the scientific evidence to the contrary because the bible is a book of prophecy fulfilled....
Prophecy fulfilled in spite of what natural science dictates.

"They part all my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." Ps 22:18

"And they crucified Him, and parted His garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." Mt 27:35

......Would you simply say "Well perhaps the story was meant to be taken figuratively" ie Jesus = Ark

I'm just curious how people [Christians obviously] would react.

I believe it is an excellent question. I don't think we have to theorize as to the answer though. There would be division, and some would cling to scripture, others would cite the 'proof' as a reason to abandon their faith, others would split the difference and seek to blend belief and disbelief.

Why do I think this would happen? Because that is what the world's 'theory' has wrought. Do you not see the same responses to that?

Many will find their faith shaken, as they have by other 'discoveries' so will there surely be more as the deception becomes more intense.

Sadly, faith can not be based on sight. We are called to a relationship that is much deeper then what we can see and touch.

As for me, I hold to the scripture. Men may seek to 'prove' what they may.... My Lord never changes.

... Your question just comes at the serious Christian from a totally incorrect angle. You seek an answer that will reflect truth by asking a question that, when examined closely, is based on a presumption. As a Christian I deal with what is instead of what might be because dealing with theories is exactly the method that is used to take the world to the point that we are involved with at the moment.

Well, dealing with theories is one of the ways we find out "what is" to begin with. You don't start out with "what is" you get there by examining evidence and making predictable theories, then testing etc. Of course this is limited to the physical natural world.



... You must first seek the truth about the reliability of the scriptures first and in doing that you will find that during the past twenty centuries men have constantly worked to take the scriptures apart and yet in every case they have ultimately proved the very points they were attacking. To date, there is not one reason, established, to disregard the Bible. The same cannot be said for any other document claiming to deal with or to be from God.

I'm not sure that the average archaeologist is trying to 'take the scriptures apart'. I think they examine what they find and let the evidence suggest what happened. No doubt there have been towns or cities the Bible has spoken of that they found through digs.



... If you ever find one credible piece of evidence that the flood did not take place you should come back and present it to us but not before the scientific community is finished with it. If you have any questions about God that do not require a Christian to step away from their faith to answer you will find many that will help you.

I'd say that by far most scientists believe the jury is out on the flood. It's not up to the scientists to prove the flood existed, they aren't claiming that it happened to begin with.

I think the ice caps on our planet are enough evidence themselves to prove there wasn't a global flood [at the very least not a mere 4000 years ago].

Hi CiscoKid,

If it were 'proven' that a story in the Bible were not true then I would still believe in God. His creation is all around us and 'proves' He exists. I believe that God is sovereign and the Bible is his inspired word. I also believe that Jesus Christ is His son and He died on the cross for us and through Him we have salvation. Many scientists, books, the media will dispute the Bible and its findings and will go on about how it isn't true, real etc....I don't spend a lot of time on this stuff, largely because I would rather be in His word and am striving to strengthen my relationship with Him. Your question really is about faith...would I lose faith if....the answer is no. Hope that helps.

Moxie

[/color]

Well, dealing with theories is one of the ways we find out "what is" to begin with. You don't start out with "what is" you get there by examining evidence and making predictable theories, then testing etc. Of course this is limited to the physical natural world.

[/color]

I'm not sure that the average archaeologist is trying to 'take the scriptures apart'. I think they examine what they find and let the evidence suggest what happened. No doubt there have been towns or cities the Bible has spoken of that they found through digs.



I'd say that by far most scientists believe the jury is out on the flood. It's not up to the scientists to prove the flood existed, they aren't claiming that it happened to begin with.

I think the ice caps on our planet are enough evidence themselves to prove there wasn't a global flood [at the very least not a mere 4000 years ago].
... I'm sorry but most of your post is totally without foundation. I never claimed that the average archaeologist was trying to take the scriptures apart, that is you spinning my words to fit your purpose. As far as your Ice Cap evidence, that is a very broad stroke you have made there and, of course you made no effort to bibliograph the statement because it is intended to send me into a frantic search.
... The elderly gentleman slides back into his chair, sighs and types, "I'm not here for the pleasure of arguing a fools argument with you."

... I'm sorry but most of your post is totally without foundation. I never claimed that the average archaeologist was trying to take the scriptures apart, that is you spinning my words to fit your purpose.

I'm sorry you think I'm twisting words. Perhaps I'm not sure what you mean by "men have constantly worked to take the scriptures apart".



As far as your Ice Cap evidence, that is a very broad stroke you have made there and, of course you made no effort to bibliograph the statement because it is intended to send me into a frantic search.

Now who is twisting words? If you want some backing for my statement, just ask I'll gladly comply.

http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html

I wouldn't think we would have ice that dates older than 4400 years old.



... The elderly gentleman slides back into his chair, sighs and types, "I'm not here for the pleasure of arguing a fools argument with you."


Again I'm sorry you feel this way. I don't think that I've acted like a fool, I'd rather you not respond to my thread if all you will do is attempt to portray me as such.

If something isn't true, we have no business believing it.


Does this mean you would leave Christianity if something were to be found false?

Does this mean you would leave Christianity if something were to be found false?

Yes. As a person who has dedicated himself to the truth I would have to leave this open as a possibility. I am not alone in this view.

In Paul's letter to the Corinthians, for example, he says similar things. I take note of the fact that he posits, for the sake of argument, the possibility that the resurrection had not taken place. If true, he says, then we Christians are the most miserable people and our faith is dead.


Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
In other words, to believe in something that isn't true is futile and worthless.


Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.What would Paul say to those who suggest that religion, even if not based in truth, and true premises, is good for people since it helps to educate the populace in morals etc.? Here he is quite emphatic about the sorry state of those who believe such a false premise and of all men, we would be "most to be pitied."

However, Paul knows the resurrection was true and he goes on to say so.

But with regard to honesty and humility with the truth, I stand by my statement and agree with Paul that if something isn't true, we have no business believing it.

Yes. As a person who has dedicated himself to the truth I would have to leave this open as a possibility. I am not alone in this view.

In Paul's letter to the Corinthians, for example, he says similar things. I take note of the fact that he posits, for the sake of argument, the possibility that the resurrection had not taken place. If true, he says, then we Christians are the most miserable people and our faith is dead.

In other words, to believe in something that isn't true is futile and worthless.

What would Paul say to those who suggest that religion, even if not based in truth, and true premises, is good for people since it helps to educate the populace in morals etc.? Here he is quite emphatic about the sorry state of those who believe such a false premise and of all men, we would be "most to be pitied."

However, Paul knows the resurrection was true and he goes on to say so.

But with regard to honesty and humility with the truth, I stand by my statement and agree with Paul that if something isn't true, we have no business believing it.


Interesting post, thank you for contributing.

I'd be interested to know how one could ever prove something "didn't happen" 2000 to 10,000 years ago.

I'd be interested to know how one could ever prove something "didn't happen" 2000 to 10,000 years ago.


If you mean prove as in 'great degree of certainty"...then I would think "strong evidence" just like anything else.

I think the earths soil does a pretty good job of gossiping so to speak ;)

If you mean prove as in 'great degree of certainty"...then I would think "strong evidence" just like anything else.

I think the earths soil does a pretty good job of gossiping so to speak ;)

I'd have to see that in action (ie. an example) to even consider the possibility. It would be pretty hard to do "scientifically" until we knew all the science there is to know. A hundred years from now we may discover the soil isn't nearly as gossipy as we thought.

I'd have to see that in action (ie. an example) to even consider the possibility. It would be pretty hard to do "scientifically" until we knew all the science there is to know. A hundred years from now we may discover the soil isn't nearly as gossipy as we thought.


Well it would depend on the situation. There are some things that I'm sure Geologists debate over but there are plenty of things that they are very sure of.

If you came home and found 4x4 tire tracks in your yard (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4931074/2/istockphoto_4931074-muddy-tire-tracks.jpg) , I'm sure you would be very certain how they got there. You wouldn't say "well, I think a 4x4 vehicle drive on my yard but let's not get too hasty, we should wait until all the scientific data is in".

The ice caps may not prove 100% that there was no global flood, but I don't know how tens of thousands of years of ice formed at the poles when the earth was under water for a year 4400 years ago.

The topic of the thread isn't about proving this one way or another, I was more interested in how important it is to folks for the Bible to be literally true in all aspects. For some it is and for some not as much.

No Christian that I know of believes the Bible is literally true in all aspects if you mean by that a wooden literal sense. In other words, every thinking Christian recognizes that the Bible contains historical narrative, poetry, symbolism, apocalyptic literature, etc. In almost all cases, it is easy to identify which genre is which, just like with other literature.

Genesis 1-11 is a section in which Christians sometimes disagree. Some people say it is historical narrative. Other people say it is symbolic or whatnot. In regards, specifically, to the flood, even those who view it as historical narrative disagree on whether it was worldwide or localized.

So even if it were proven, somehow, that there was never a worldwide flood, that wouldn't even surprise all Christians who take Genesis 1-11 literally, let alone the many Christians who don't.

That being said, I do take Genesis 1-11 literally. And I do think the flood was worldwide. And I think there's plenty of evidence to support a worldwide flood. But as stupid as hypotheticals are, I'm willing to imagine a scenario in which a worldwide flood was proven to be a-historical. In that case, to answer your more general question, I would simply be surprised and re-evaluate how I determine what passages are historical narrative and which are not and/or how to interpret historical narrative sections. It would, by no means, cause me to leave the Christian faith b/c non of the issues involved are essential Christian doctrines.

To answer your question--finding out that some portions of the Bible were not literally accurate would not shake my faith in God a bit (nor would it surprise me).

The Bible is God's inspired word given to us through many generations of human beings. The Bible did not fall out of heaven, intact, in KJV. I don't know why God didn't send his word that way, but he didn't. Instead, he chose to give us the Bible as a compilation of dozens of books, put down in writing by different people, at different times, for different purposes. Some parts (such as the gospel accounts) are based on eyewitness testimony and are intended to be literal accounts of actual historical events. I believe other parts were never intended to be interpreted literally (though many will disagree with me here!) Are the creation accounts really intended to be how-to guides for making a world, or are they intended to show the nature of God and people's relation to him? (Granted, some will say "both".)

Note that the majority opinion here on these boards is that everything in the Bible must be literally true, and I am in the minority. I was not going to post on this thread because I do not like the angry backlash I get when I say anything against the dominant views here. But, I felt compelled to point out that devout, Christ-loving Christians can (and do!) disagree on ideas that are not essential to the Christian faith. We do not have to agree on every detail to agree that Jesus is Lord.

Keep searching and asking good questions, Cisco.:)

I recall being a young lad in Church when I asked my youth pastor about a certain event in the Bible. I can't remember which event it was but I asked him if he believed it really happened.

His answer was quick and firm, "Yes I do...if I can't trust one story in the Bible, then the book is useless."

I am curious then, let's pretend somehow we come up with vital evidence that proves [as much as proof can] there never was a global flood. I'm not sure what the evidence is but let's say it would be something shockingly strong.

Would you lose your faith completely or at all? Would you simply say "Well perhaps the story was meant to be taken figuratively" ie Jesus = Ark

I'm just curious how people [Christians obviously] would react.


Interesting question. Do you still believe that your parents exist and love you, despite learning that Santa Claus does not exist?

To answer your question--finding out that some portions of the Bible were not literally accurate would not shake my faith in God a bit (nor would it surprise me).

The Bible is God's inspired word given to us through many generations of human beings. The Bible did not fall out of heaven, intact, in KJV. I don't know why God didn't send his word that way, but he didn't. Instead, he chose to give us the Bible as a compilation of dozens of books, put down in writing by different people, at different times, for different purposes. Some parts (such as the gospel accounts) are based on eyewitness testimony and are intended to be literal accounts of actual historical events. I believe other parts were never intended to be interpreted literally (though many will disagree with me here!) Are the creation accounts really intended to be how-to guides for making a world, or are they intended to show the nature of God and people's relation to him? (Granted, some will say "both".)

Note that the majority opinion here on these boards is that everything in the Bible must be literally true, and I am in the minority. I was not going to post on this thread because I do not like the angry backlash I get when I say anything against the dominant views here. But, I felt compelled to point out that devout, Christ-loving Christians can (and do!) disagree on ideas that are not essential to the Christian faith. We do not have to agree on every detail to agree that Jesus is Lord.

Keep searching and asking good questions, Cisco.:)

An outstanding post. I find it interesting that you are from the Netherlands, my understanding is that Europeans tend to have more liberal stances on interpretation of scripture. Thanks for your contribution.

Interesting question. Do you still believe that your parents exist and love you, despite learning that Santa Claus does not exist?


Yes I do. Trust me I understand the viewpoint of not taking everything literal in the Bible. Let me give you insight on why I asked this question.

A week ago I saw a video where George Bush was interviewed. He was asked a few questions regarding his Biblical beliefs, one of which was "Do you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?" or something along those lines.

He essentially said "I believe God used evolution to get us to where we are today. I don't necessarily believe in a literal Adam and Eve".

I saw a link for a comments section and decided to click. I was shocked at some of the venemous comments from "Christians". I could sense the anger from many Americans on the fact that Bush wasn't a literalist. It got me wondering if people generally really feel that threatened if we find out parts of Genesis aren't literally true.

I've been asked before if evolution helped to drive me away from the Bible or Christianity. My response is "no, but hardcore biblical literalism has."

An outstanding post. I find it interesting that you are from the Netherlands, my understanding is that Europeans tend to have more liberal stances on interpretation of scripture. Thanks for your contribution.

Hate to break it to you, but I'm not so exotic. I've been in Holland for 6 months; I'm really from Iowa.

From what I've seen of Europeans so far here (if I can make such a sweeping generalization)--as far as politics go, yes they're much more liberal than America. But as far as biblical interpretation goes, most of them couldn't care less! Those who aren't blatantly against Christianity simply don't care about religion. (Note that there are some very devout, committed Christians here...but they're very much in the minority. We American Christians don't realize how good we have it in the US.)

Hate to break it to you, but I'm not so exotic. I've been in Holland for 6 months; I'm really from Iowa.

From what I've seen of Europeans so far here (if I can make such a sweeping generalization)--as far as politics go, yes they're much more liberal than America. But as far as biblical interpretation goes, most of them couldn't care less! Those who aren't blatantly against Christianity simply don't care about religion. (Note that there are some very devout, committed Christians here...but they're very much in the minority. We American Christians don't realize how good we have it in the US.)


Wow, from Iowa to Holland pretty wild. Are you in the military? Based on what I've read, countries like Sweden and Norway etc are fairly godless....maybe 40% are atheistic or agnostic.

I guess what you state also goes to show that a country does not have to be overly religious to have happy content citizens. ;)

I don't know why some Americans are so militant about literalism but that's been my impression, but then I live in PA.

I guess what you state also goes to show that a country does not have to be overly religious to have happy content citizens. ;)



Excellent point above. If your goal is to just be happy and content in this life, you really don't need Christ. In fact being Christian could be counterproductive to that goal.

If, however, your goal is to know the Truth, to experience the peace that passes understanding, to bring glory to God, to become the full person you were created to be, and to experience the unspeakable joy of everlasting life with God for now and eternity...then Christ is essential.

(It breaks my heart when militant literalism pushes people away from Jesus.)

Keep seeking.:)

Yes I do. Trust me I understand the viewpoint of not taking everything literal in the Bible. Let me give you insight on why I asked this question.

A week ago I saw a video where George Bush was interviewed. He was asked a few questions regarding his Biblical beliefs, one of which was "Do you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?" or something along those lines.

He essentially said "I believe God used evolution to get us to where we are today. I don't necessarily believe in a literal Adam and Eve".

I saw a link for a comments section and decided to click. I was shocked at some of the venemous comments from "Christians". I could sense the anger from many Americans on the fact that Bush wasn't a literalist. It got me wondering if people generally really feel that threatened if we find out parts of Genesis aren't literally true.

I've been asked before if evolution helped to drive me away from the Bible or Christianity. My response is "no, but hardcore biblical literalism has."

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with accepting the book of Genesis as being literally true. But, having said that, if it does turn out that some of it was metaphorical I don't see that it would crush my faith at all.

What you're describing in your comments section sounds like a lot of people not acting in love. Although many of them may say they are Christian it's easy to claim anything on an anonymous message board.

I couldn't help notice you saying how hardcore literalism has driven you away from the Bible. You're making the exact same mistake I made that cost me 15 years away from God - focus on God and the sacrifice Jesus made for you. What other people think is secondary.

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with accepting the book of Genesis as being literally true. But, having said that, if it does turn out that some of it was metaphorical I don't see that it would crush my faith at all.



What you're describing in your comments section sounds like a lot of people not acting in love. Although many of them may say they are Christian it's easy to claim anything on an anonymous message board.

Oh I agree, for many in America I think the claim "I'm a Christian" is simply another way of saying "I'm a good American". I guess I was just surprised though at the anger I saw...why were people so upset by this? I don't get it I guess. Perhaps it's just people being too defensive?



I couldn't help notice you saying how hardcore literalism has driven you away from the Bible. You're making the exact same mistake I made that cost me 15 years away from God - focus on God and the sacrifice Jesus made for you. What other people think is secondary.

Well I didn't mean to suggest that hardcore literalism alone drove me from Christianity, but I'd say it drove me further away. I appreciate your thoughts.

Well it would depend on the situation. There are some things that I'm sure Geologists debate over but there are plenty of things that they are very sure of.

If you came home and found 4x4 tire tracks in your yard (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4931074/2/istockphoto_4931074-muddy-tire-tracks.jpg) , I'm sure you would be very certain how they got there. You wouldn't say "well, I think a 4x4 vehicle drive on my yard but let's not get too hasty, we should wait until all the scientific data is in".

The ice caps may not prove 100% that there was no global flood, but I don't know how tens of thousands of years of ice formed at the poles when the earth was under water for a year 4400 years ago.

The topic of the thread isn't about proving this one way or another, I was more interested in how important it is to folks for the Bible to be literally true in all aspects. For some it is and for some not as much.

Actually your 4x4 example is not proving a negative. I strongly agree that external evidence can support that something DID happen but still doubt that you can prove something DIDN"T happen 2000 or 10,000 years ago. I'm not ready to accept the ice caps necessarily took "tens of thousands of years" to form. Interesting to note that just 30 years ago there were certain canyon geological formations that modern science was absolutely sure took hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to form. It was an established scientific fact. Until, that is, Mount St. Helens erupted and these same formations were created virtually overnight. We now know that certain cataclysmic events can create natural phenomena very quickly which we used to think only happened over millions of years.

Well I didn't mean to suggest that hardcore literalism alone drove me from Christianity, but I'd say it drove me further away. I appreciate your thoughts.

So why not at least move closer back and focus on what God is trying to tell you? Why not take a look at the sacrifice Jesus made for you - look at God rather than Man's wrappings around God.

Actually your 4x4 example is not proving a negative. I strongly agree that external evidence can support that something DID happen but still doubt that you can prove something DIDN"T happen 2000 or 10,000 years ago. I'm not ready to accept the ice caps necessarily took "tens of thousands of years" to form. Interesting to note that just 30 years ago there were certain canyon geological formations that modern science was absolutely sure took hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to form. It was an established scientific fact. Until, that is, Mount St. Helens erupted and these same formations were created virtually overnight. We now know that certain cataclysmic events can create natural phenomena very quickly which we used to think only happened over millions of years.

Just so I can read more on this situation can you provide an article that goes over the Mt. St. Helens formation?

Just so I can read more on this situation can you provide an article that goes over the Mt. St. Helens formation?

I believe it was in one of Norman Geisler's books (with footnoted references). I will look it up when I get home.

Just so I can read more on this situation can you provide an article that goes over the Mt. St. Helens formation?

Here is a link from a scientist with a summery of the information re: Mount Saint Helens effects.


http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=261

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=261


Thanks, I was thinking of a different issue regarding Helens. I did some checking, there is a rebuttal to these claims which I can IM you if you are curious.

Reminder here folks, if you're going to post a link...make sure you include a description of the link...

Thanks! :)

The old: "If there's ONE error in text anywhere in the Word, you can't trust ANY of it" foolishness has been a "fundamentalist" claim for a VERY long time - and WOULD be correct if we were addressing the Bible ONLY in an intellectual/legal mode.

GOOD NEWS!!! - there ARE "errors in text" in the Word (lists are available ALL OVER the 'Net), and we trust it anyway.

The simple reason being that God's NOT dead, and not on vacation. Not deaf, dumb, and blind, and NOT "disinterested" in His children.

And HE's perfectly CAPABLE, and perfectly WILLING to give wisdom LIBERALLY to anybody who WANTS IT singlemindedly.

After my many years of Bible study, I have concluded that there ARE contradictions in the Bible.

So what? It was inspired by the Holy Spirit. And how, specifically, do errors and contradictions negate the saving power of Christ?

I don't worry about biblical contradictions. I try to pay attention to Jesus and hope I will grow in Him.