What do (or don't) you believe in the Bible?

[Brother Mark]

So you believe that over 2 million Jews left Egypt and wandered for 40 years which only took Moses a couple of days. What did he get so losted that he forgot how to get back?

I personally don't know how many it was. But Moses wasn't familiar with all the area they went. That's why he asked for Habab to lead him. It's an example to us about how we need others who have gone before to assist us.

But the reason for the 40 years was because Israel allowed fear and unbelief to enter in. So yea, they wondered around for 40 years in the desert eating manna given by the Lord Jesus. Paul and Jesus both spoke about it as if it really occurred. Why would I doubt either of them?

[Haramis]

So you believe that over 2 million Jews left Egypt and wandered for 40 years which only took Moses a couple of days. What did he get so losted that he forgot how to get back?

They were lost at God's will. It wasn't that they couldn't find their way due to incompetence, God prevented them from reaching their intended destination.

[Beckrl]

How did Paul read it? Was he unlearned?

1 Cor 10:1-5

10 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.
NASU

There's no reason to over spiritualize scripture. Paul didn't do that, nor did Jesus. They did see allegory but they didn't conclude or suggest that the scriptures were not historically accurate.

I'm not suggesting that the people of Israel wasn't in Egypt and fleed to the new land promised to them, but can we read the records of that wandering in the wilderness for 40 years with only manna. And read it as being literally what happen or should we read it as poetry. Manna here was spiritual food and not something real in the sence of eating it for the physical body.

[Brother Mark]

I'm not suggesting that the people of Israel wasn't in Egypt and fleed to the new land promised to them, but can we read the records of that wandering in the wilderness for 40 years with only manna. And read it as being literally what happen or should we read it as poetry. Manna here was spiritual food and not something real in the sence of eating it for the physical body.

It was real. It was gathered up and placed in the Ark of testimony as a testimony to other generations. The NT confirms it as actually happening along with the OT. Jesus also confirms it.

Heb 9:3-5
3 Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, 4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant; 5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
NASU

So we have Moses record in Exodus, we have the Hebrew writer, the witness of Paul and of Jesus. Why shouldn't I believe them?

Jesus used it as an example of spiritual bread from heaven. But in doing so, he did not deny that the actual event really occurred. Why should we?

[Beckrl]

I personally don't know how many it was. But Moses wasn't familiar with all the area they went. That's why he asked for Habab to lead him. It's an example to us about how we need others who have gone before to assist us.

But the reason for the 40 years was because Israel allowed fear and unbelief to enter in. So yea, they wondered around for 40 years in the desert eating manna given by the Lord Jesus. Paul and Jesus both spoke about it as if it really occurred. Why would I doubt either of them?

So you're saying that God gave them spiritual manna or something real to eat for 40 years?

[Brother Mark]

So you're saying that God gave them spiritual manna or something real to eat for 40 years?

I am saying he gave them something real to eat. They put some of it in a gold jar and kept it in the ark as a testimony.

Jesus taught us that even though they ate that manna, they died. What he gives will cause us to live forever. But he never once indicated the manna that Moses ate was spiritual or poetic. He indicated it was real and but that it had a spiritual application for us today.

The Hebrew writer himself indicated it was real. (See my post above. I think I answered this question there.) Why go to great lengths to believe otherwise?

Thing is, those real things have spiritual meanings. God created real vines and real trees. But he used them to teach us the spiritual lesson of abiding.

[Beckrl]

I am saying he gave them something real to eat. They put some of it in a gold jar and kept it in the ark as a testimony.

Jesus taught us that even though they ate that manna, they died. What he gives will cause us to live forever. But he never once indicated the manna that Moses ate was spiritual or poetic. He indicated it was real and but that it had a spiritual application for us today.

The Hebrew writer himself indicated it was real. (See my post above. I think I answered this question there.) Why go to great lengths to believe otherwise?

Thing is, those real things have spiritual meanings. God created real vines and real trees. But he used them to teach us the spiritual lesson of abiding.

Just what was in that jar? Didn't the manna melt away and only lasted for one day with exception of the sixth day a double portion.

[Brother Mark]

Just what was in that jar? Didn't the manna melt away and only lasted for one day with exception of the sixth day a double portion.

Sure it did. Except for that manna which was placed in the jar as a testimony.

[Youssarian]

This confirms what I thought. You think that in order for God to be real, the world needs to be 6,000 years old. If the world is in fact 4 billion+ you can't believe in God.

Actually, that's what I formerly believed. At current time, I am unsure whether the universe is young or old. There are decent arguments for either side of the conversation. Whatever the correct answer is, God is still the one who caused it.

You're trying to turn the Bible into something it simply isn't. The Bible is not a science book. It was never intended to be. The Bible is tool from God to grow your relationship with him. Not a step-by-step guide on how to repair your transmission. The Bible has a purpose and it suits it well. However, it does a very poor job of selecting the best color carpet for your house

Agreed. The Bible is not intended to explain the "How?" of the universe; rather it answers the "Why?". Many people feel that God and science contradict each other. In fact I feel they complement each other. Christianity and science are not at war like many believe. In fact, it was the Catholic church that helped advance our knowledge of the world around us. To paraphrase a quote I once heard, it has been often heavenly minded men who helped advance knowledge. I have the mind of a scientist and the heart of a Christian.

Yes to all of those things. But the question is what things matter? Does the count of Solomon's wives matter to your spirit? Do you feel closer to God if the Hebrew people literally had grain falling from the sky on a daily basis for 40 years?
To me, the only parts of apologetics that matter basically consist of Jesus and God, yes they are real. Most of the other stuff is interesting, but unimportant.

Believe me, I've gone deep, deep into nit picking over pointless little facts. I'd bet I've spent at least a few hundred hours debating the Book of Revelations with others. It's fun, but the people I disagree with are not hell bound.
Your salvation is through God, not how old you think Joash was when he ascended the throne.

Agreed.

I've never seen God. I've never heard a voice in my ear or anything miraculous. My proof of God is in the results of my life. When I follow God, I'm happier, when I don't, I'm not.

That is good proof.

Let's say my concern is that modern apologetics equates demonstrable inerrancy with the very existence of the God of Abraham. It's an either or for most of them. Either Job was a real person and physically went through years of torture or else Jesus was a myth and you may as well pray to a rock.
This is a view I've commonly seen expressed and if it's not the majority position of dedicated apologists, it certainly is online.

That is akin to the kind of mindset I had when I first had my crisis of faith. If things weren't as I believed them to be, or the alternative couldn't backed up by Scripture and proper reasoning, it seemed like my faith was false. I've come to learn differently though. As I've said with the age of the Earth and universe, as well as other things, I'm currently unsure. What I do know is this: God is real, Jesus rose from the dead, and that some day I'm going to be judged and I'd reaaaally like to get into Heaven.

[GitRDunn]

I am just curious to what degree people here believe in the Bible, and how seriously they take it?

I find it VERY hard to "pick and choose" what I believe in. I mean, if the story about Creation is made up, then maybe the prophecies about Jesus are made up too? Etc, etc.

I want to believe in everything in the Bible, but after a secular education, and against scientists who say they have the objective truth, it's not that easy.

So here is an attempt to check what people find it hard to believe in.

I do not mean to stir up any hard feelings and I do not judge or critisize people who look at this from a different angle than me. I am hoping for an honest opinon on what stories from the bible are less easy to believe in. If you think of something else which did not occur to me, please write about it in a comment!

"I find it hard to believe in..."

I answered the 6-day creation and that the Earth is less than 10000 years old, but that answer comes with a caveat. I said I don't believe these things, but a better description is that I don't believe in them in a literal sense. I believe everything in the Bible is true, just not that everything is literal.

[TrustGzus]

I answered the 6-day creation and that the Earth is less than 10000 years old, but that answer comes with a caveat. I said I don't believe these things, but a better description is that I don't believe in them in a literal sense. I believe everything in the Bible is true, just not that everything is literal.

And if I can jump on GitRDunn's post, I take 6-day as 6 yom, which doesn't necessary imply a 24-hour day. And I don't take 10,000 as a Bible teaching because nowhere does the Bible teach that. This is a conclusion based on premises which much be built. It isn't a "literal" teaching of the Bible. I don't see anywhere in which the Bible says the universe is X years old.

[glad4mercy]

So you believe that over 2 million Jews left Egypt and wandered for 40 years which only took Moses a couple of days. What did he get so losted that he forgot how to get back?

The children of Israel wandered for 40 years because of unbelief. In the same way, it took over 40 years for God to get me to a point where I could have been 25 years ago. This was because of my own spiritual failures. When God brought the people out of Egypt, they werent ready to possess the land. He needed to teach them to trust Him, and that "...man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God". Then when the time came to possess the Land, they staggered in unbelief, so the whole faithless generation had to die as wanderers, ( except for Joshua and Caleb), and the children were the ones who got to enter.

Really, none of the Bible is hard to believe with the God I know. God works miracles all the time. It's just that others don't give God the credit He deserves for the miracles that He does, they just attribute it to themselves or to luck or something else. I see miracles all around. God is doing wonders all the time, most just don't see it, or choose not to. I'm not saying this about you, just people in general.

[glad4mercy]

I'm not suggesting that the people of Israel wasn't in Egypt and fleed to the new land promised to them, but can we read the records of that wandering in the wilderness for 40 years with only manna. And read it as being literally what happen or should we read it as poetry. Manna here was spiritual food and not something real in the sence of eating it for the physical body.

Everyone has to study the Bible and pray and ask God to reveal it's meaning. We can all come up with theories on what we think it can mean, but no one can understand the Bible apart from the Spirit's illumination. If we have received the New Birth, if we read the Bible in context, ( not just a piece here and a piece there, but live on every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God), and if we depend entirely and fully on God to reveal the meaning to us, Jesus said that the Spirit will teach us all things and bring all things to our remembrance. But we must, ( to the best of our abilities), come to God with open hand and open heart to receive what He wants to reveal to us. We must lay aside all human presuppositions and let God teach us. We must become like little children before Him, or we will learn nothing

[glad4mercy]

I answered the 6-day creation and that the Earth is less than 10000 years old, but that answer comes with a caveat. I said I don't believe these things, but a better description is that I don't believe in them in a literal sense. I believe everything in the Bible is true, just not that everything is literal.

Just out of curiosity. How do you yourself discern what is literal and what is non-literal? What parts of the Bible do you hold to be literal? These questions are for all those who are arguing against literalism. I am a literalist, but I do recognize that parts of the Bible are symbolic, ( for example parables), yet these symbols represent literal realities. When you say that you don't interpret the Bible literally, where do you draw the line between what is literal and what is not.

If there is spiritual, supernatural reality wouldnt that be sufficient to explain miracles, for what are miracles but occurrances that cannot be explained by naturalistic means. To deny miracles ( imho) is the same as denying a spiritual reality that exists outside of our five senses, which is a contradiction to the statement that "we walk by faith, not by sight".

[Hannah]

I have this problem too.

It's not that I CAN'T believe that parts of the bible is true even if 6 day creation isn't...

It's just that it suddenly makes it all so much less holy, so much more human (erroneous).

And it opens up a can of worms. Then, as soon as something in the Bible doesn't sit right with me, I can just say "well it's probably the same as with Creation - not intended to be taken literally". And then it won't be long until you have what is known in some languages as "liberalteologi" - A kind of humanism with a teaspoon of Jesus thrown in.

Either a book intends to depict real events, it is fiction, or maybe deliberate proganda.
I want to see the bible as falling into the "real event" category. Fiction is great, but it's not something you change your life for.